Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Mallam Said bin Hayatu

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Mallam Said bin Hayatu has been detained without trial in Nigeria for 33 years; and whether he will order a new investigation into the circumstances.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Hare): No, Sir. Mallam Said has not been detained in physical custody since 1924 and I do not think any investigation is called for.

Mr. Hale: Is not the Colonial Secretary aware that under his own Order, made in 1955, Mallam Said bin Hayatu is in the custody of the Resident Commissioner of Kano, and that under a statutory Lettre de Cachet issued in 1924 he is liable to be imprisoned without trial if he moves? Is not this a scandalous state of affairs, reminiscent of "The Man in the Iron Mask?" Does not the Minister consider that the more modern practice of dealing with someone who makes a speech against colonial authority by sending him to the House of Lords is more civilised?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is giving a wrong impression, because under the latest order to which he refers, Mallam Said is given

freedom to move anywhere except in the three Provinces of Adamawa, Bauchi and Bornu.

Captain Pilkington: On a point of order. Is there any safeguard, Mr. Speaker, against an hon. Member putting down a Question like this, which is apparently quite inaccurate and does a great deal of harm?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members are themselves responsible for the allegations which they make in Questions.

Captain Pilkington: Is there any limit to which an hon. Member can go in putting down a Question like this?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members are themselves the judges of what it is right for them to do.

Mr. Hale: On a point of personal explanation, as an allegation has been made against my accuracy. I hold in my hand a Colonial Office Order made by the Acting-Deputy-Chief Secretary of the Council of Ministers, dated 14th April, 1955, which says:
Mallam Said bin Hayatu shall, from the date hereof … continue under the lawful custody of the Resident, Kano Province, who shall impose such restriction on the liberty of the said person as he may think necessary.

Mr. Speaker: There seems to be a dispute about the facts here, but that is quite a common occurrence in this House.

Oversea Service (Special List)

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in securing the agreement of colonial Governments to discuss detailed arrangements for the transfer of members of the Oversea Service to the Special List as envisaged in the White Paper, Command Paper No. 9768.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): A draft agreement to apply the Special List arrangements to the Nigerian Public Services is now being considered by the Federal and Regional Governments of Nigeria. The arrangements have been welcomed in principle by the Northern and Western Regional Governments while the Federal and Eastern Regional Governments hope to let me have their preliminary views during July.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us were extremely


disappointed that the White Paper and the arrangements to which he has just made reference refer only to Nigeria? Is he aware that the situation is quite serious in other Colonies? Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that narrow financial considerations are not holding up a settlement of the wider issue of the reorganisation of this vital service?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can certainly give that assurance. As I said on 17th May, it is possible to extend the scheme to other territories. As and when Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that circumstances make this extension desirable, then we shall be in a position to do it.

Journalistic Training, United Kingdom

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Nigerians wishing to train as journalists in the United Kingdom are experiencing difficulty owing to the limited number of institutions which give full-time instruction in journalism, and to trade union objections to the attachment of persons to newspapers in this country; and what steps he is taking to assist them.

Mr. Hare: Eight places are reserved annually for colonial candidates on the course in journalism at the Regent Street Polytechnic. Three Nigerians are attending the present course.
I am not aware of trade union objections to the attachment of Nigerian journalists to newspapers in the United Kingdom. A number of such attachments has been arranged in recent years, and I would welcome the further co-operation of the newspaper industry in this matter.

Mr. Tilney: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the many points which he has put to me in a long letter on this subject, may I ask him if he would agree that it is a Commonwealth interest to have an efficient and balanced Press in Nigeria? Would he consider discussing this problem further, not only with the Newspaper Society, but with the Commonwealth Press Union?

Mr. Hare: Certainly; I am agreeing with my hon. Friend as to the need in this matter. I have said in my Answer

to him that we will welcome the co-operation of the newspaper industry. Our next step is to approach the Newspaper Society.

Mr. Bevan: May I ask the Minister whether, if his hon. Friend is able to discover a means of creating a balanced Press out there, he will apply the same principles to Great Britain?

Mr. Hare: I have listened to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Elections, Northern House of Assembly

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the proposals for elections in the Northern Region of Nigeria; and in particular if all women are to be excluded from the franchise.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Regional Premier has announced that he will advise the Governor to hold fresh elections to the Northern House of Assembly late in 1956 or early in 1957. New electoral regulations are under consideration, but are unlikely to extend the franchise to women.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the Secretary of State agree that it is highly regrettable that the franchise is not to be extended to women when they have it elsewhere? One appreciates the historic and other difficulties, but apparently no women, not even those who have been educated, will have the franchise.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not prepared to try to force on the largely Muslim population something alien to its traditions.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is it not a fact that the largely Muslim population in Western Nigeria, led by Mr. Awolowo of the Action Party, has given a franchise to women?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That just shows how wise it is to leave these things to local decision.

Chief Awolowo (Meeting, Ilorin)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds Mr. Awolowo, Prime Minister of the Western Region of Nigeria, has been refused permission to


address a meeting of his supporters planned at Ilorin in the Northern Region on 30th June.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member is misinformed. Chief Awolowo, who is Premier of the Western Region, has not been refused a permit to hold a meeting at Ilorin. The Ilorin Native Authority decided that a procession and meeting inside the town would constitute a serious threat to public order, but they will agree to a meeting on the outskirts of the town and have already offered to issue a permit accordingly.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer shows that I am not in the least misinformed in my Question? Is it not the case that Mr. Awolowo, Prime Minister of the Western Region, has been refused permission to speak in the town and that he is permitted to speak only outside the walls of the town?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This relates to a proposed meeting in a different territory, in the Northern Region and not in the Western Region. Under the Native Authority Law, 1954, the Northern Native Authority has certain powers. If it decides to exercise them in this way and to say that a meeting in the town, with its limited police facilities, is not a wise step, but that there can be a meeting outside the town, that seems to me to be essentially a matter for local decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Colonial Servants (Salaries and Conditions)

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consideration is being given to the position of colonial servants in territories such as Mauritius in which pay and conditions of service compare unfavourably with those of some other territories of comparable size.

Mr. Hare: Salaries revisions are being undertaken in a number of smaller territories. In Mauritius, basic data are being collected to enable salaries and conditions of service to be examined.

Mrs. White: Could not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to issue model rules

or advice to some of the smaller territories to secure some uniformity of conditions, such as those applying to leave, housing, medical services, and passages for wives and children? There is a very wide discrepancy.

Mr. Hare: That is a very useful suggestion, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be glad to consider what the hon. Lady has said.

Colonial Development Corporation

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now give the date when he proposes to introduce legislation to validate certain work undertaken or financed by the Colonial Development Corporation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Lady's Question on 14th June.

Mrs. White: As in that reply the right hon. Gentleman hoped to complete the legislation this Session, can he not now say when he proposes to introduce legislation, for the lack of which extremely important housing and road projects and other public works have been held up since last November in Malaya and in East, Central, and West Africa? This is far too serious a matter for there to be delay for lack of what should be a short and, I imagine, uncontroversial Bill.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Bill is not quite so short as the hon. Lady imagines. Lord Reith knows all the difficulties, and knows also of my own keen desire to do what I said I hoped to be able to do in the reply which I gave to the hon. Lady.

Training Courses (Egypt, Soviet Bloc and China)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many British subjects or British-protected persons from the Coloniel Empire are undergoing courses of study in Egypt; and to which territories they belong.

Mr. Hare: I am making inquiries and will let the hon. Member have the information as soon as possible.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to state the number of persons from each of the Colonial Territories who are undergoing educational or other


courses of training in the Union of Soviet Republics or other countries of the Soviet bloc or China; and how many have undergone such courses since the end of the war.

Mr. Hare: I am not yet able to supply the information, as the inquiries I am making from colonial Governments are not completed.

Strategic Bases

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why he has decided to set up a special department to take charge of those Colonies which are strategic bases; and if he will make a statement on the administrative changes which he intends to make.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A Press report in the sense of the first part of this Question was due to a misunderstanding. For some time up to September last one Assistant Under-Secretary of State in the Colonial Office was responsible for, among other places, the three Mediterranean Colonies, the Federation of Malaya, Hong Kong and Singapore. In September, after the appointment of the Malta Round Table Conference, official responsibility for it and for the affairs of Malta was moved temporarily to another Assistant Under-Secretary. Through certain retirements and promotions the opportunity has now occurred to revert to the previous arrangement, and as from 1st July responsibility for all the territories mentioned will again be entrusted to one Assistant Under-Secretary, whose schedule will also include the Borneo Territories but not those in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Secretary of State say whether it is the fact that those Colonies which are strategic bases are now passing into the virtual control of the Foreign Office, and that now we shall have two types of colonial policy, one dictated by the Colonial Office and one influenced by the Foreign Office?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Any such view would be completely false.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Native Reserves (Amendment) Order

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which are the corporations controlled by the Federal

Government to which reference is made in the Government Notice No. 27 of 1956 regarding the Northern Rhodesia (Native Reserves) (Amendment) Order in Council, 1955.

Mr. Hare: The Federal Power Board is the only corporation so far concerned.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members on this side of the House are most uneasy about an order of this kind? Three years ago Lord Chandos gave us every assurance that he would safeguard the land of the Africans. Will the Minister give a similar pledge that he will not enable public corporations, upon a large scale, to enter upon African native land?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member is aware that I answered this question very fully on 2nd May, in reply to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin). I will give full particulars of that Answer. Meanwhile, I can give the hon. Gentleman the same assurance as I gave the hon. Member for Govan. There is no intention to alter the safeguards about the African land which were established at the time of the formation of the Federation.

Police Force

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the expenditure on the Northern Rhodesian Police Force in 1947, 1952, and last year.

Mr. Hare: Recurrent expenditure for 1947 was £127,663; for 1952, £589,336; for 1954–55, £943,635; Capital expenditure for those years was £3,702, £185,700 and £126,000 respectively.

Mr. Swingler: Does not that phenomenal increase in expenditure upon the police force reveal a most disturbing state of affairs? Does it not mean that the expenditure upon the police in Northern Rhodesia has increased almost seven-fold in seven years? Should not some inquiry be made as to why that is necessary, and would not it be far better to spend a little more money upon meeting the needs of the people instead of spending so much money organising the police force?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member does not take into account the rise in population which has taken place in that time. The European population was 27,100 in 1947


and has risen to 64,800 today. The number of Africans employed has risen from 160,000 in 1949 to 257,000 today.

Mr. Stokes: Seven times the police for twice the population.

Trade Union Representatives (Entry)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will arrange for the provision of facilities for trade union representatives to enter Northern Rhodesian territory from Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

Mr. Hare: Trade union representatives may enter Northern Rhodesia from Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in the normal way. No special facilities are necessary.

Mr. Swingler: Would the Minister of State make some approaches so as to organise this matter upon a reciprocal basis between the territories in the Federation? Has his attention been drawn to a recent case of a refusal to allow a trade union leader to move into a part of the Federal territories? Will not the Minister make some representation to the authorities there so as to allow the elementary freedom for trade union leaders to move about the territories?

Mr. Hare: The Question deals with entry into Northern Rhodesia. I can assure the hon. Member that no trade unionists have been prevented from entering the territory under this legislation. I will certainly draw the attention of the Federal Government to what the hon. Member said in regard to the other points.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Felled Orange Trees (Compensation Offers)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement regarding the progress of compensation payments to the owners of orange trees that have been felled by security forces in Cyprus in the Famagusta district.

Mr. Hare: Offers of compensation are now being made to the property owners concerned.

Mr. Donnelly: Is there any suggestion that property owners themselves are in any way implicated in the bomb-throwing incidents which led to the felling of these trees? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if they are not implicated the compensation will take note of the loss of revenue resulting from the felling?

Mr. Hare: Compensation for the felling of these trees is being paid under Regulation 46, and it is done very fairly. If the man concerned does not wish to accept the sum offered by the Government in this case, he can go to an arbitration board appointed by the Governor and consisting of three persons; one a judicial officer, one a Government officer and one an unofficial person.

Collective Punishments

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of occasions on which collective punishments have been imposed in Cyprus, the amounts involved and for what purposes.

Mr. Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total amount of fines imposed upon towns and villages in Cyprus since the emergency began.

Mr. Hare: Collective punishments with fines totalling £105,850 have been imposed on 17 occasions when the inhabitants of a locality have committed or connived at terrorist acts or failed to render all assistance in their power to discover offenders.

Mr. Donnelly: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the comments in the reputable British Press—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name."]—the Economist—which say that these fines are having the reverse of the desired effect? What evidence can he give the House that the situation is improving as a result of the imposition of these fines?

Mr. Hare: We can all express our opinions in the newspapers as we like, but that opinion is not shared by the Governor of Cyprus.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have no intention of slackening in their policy to restore order in Cyprus before engaging in any parley with the enemy?

Mr. Speaker: That seems to be a wider question.

Mr. Hunter: What method is adopted for collecting these fines? Does everybody pay, or only selected people? What amount is levied upon each person?

Mr. Hare: Fines are collected through local government channels—through the Commissioner's organisation—and are assessed upon each individual according to his ability to pay.

New Teachers' Training College

Major Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made with the new teachers' training college in Cyprus; when this building will be completed; and whether he will consider extending this college to include other faculties so that it might form the nucleus of a university college.

Mr. Hare: Work has begun on the college buildings; they are expected to be ready for occupation by the end of 1957. It is hoped that the residential accommodation, which will take about twenty months to complete, will be started later this year. My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to consider extending the functions of the college.

Major Wall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that most satisfactory reply. Would not he agree to go on considering the question of a university, bearing in mind not only the question of Cyprus, but the whole of the Middle East? Would he agree that there are not enough university places in this country or in the American university at Beirut to fulfil all the requirements of the Middle East; and also bear in mind that such a university would greatly enhance British prestige as well as fulfil a need in the Middle East?

Mr. Hare: As I told my hon. and gallant Friend in February, we have the possibility of setting up a university at Cyprus well in mind, Meanwhile, as I think he will agree, we should get on with this first building and then we can think about it.

Mrs. L. Jeger: In order that there may be some students ready to enter the college in 1957, will the Government try to get the secondary schools re-opened?

Otherwise, there will be no students with sufficient educational attainments to enter the college?

Mr. Hare: All these matters are in the mind of my right hon. Friend.

Secondary School Teachers (Pensions)

Major Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will recommend a change in the system now prevailing in Cyprus where a large number of secondary school teachers receive their pensions, or part of the pensions, from foreign Powers.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to pensions from the Greek Government. I do not like this system and I have the position under consideration.

Major Wall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. Is it correct to say that the Turkish Government have also paid pensions to teachers in their schools, and would not he agree that these things are wrong in a British Colony?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My information is that no pensions are paid by the Turkish Government to Cypriots, but some pensions are paid to Turkish nationals who are members of the Turkish Government education service and seconded to Cyprus schools. There is a difference in the two cases.

Evictions

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many evictions have taken place in Cyprus recently as part of the emergency measures; and what steps he has taken for rehousing the homeless.

Mr. Hare: On 16th March ten householders and eighteen shopkeepers in Nicosia were evicted; they were allowed to return on 9th June. On 29th May, seventeen householders and thirty-five shopkeepers in Nicosia were evicted for a period of three months. Other accommodation was available, and no one was rendered homeless.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister explain why these evictions are necessary if the people are to return almost immediately? Is any opportunity given to old people,


invalids and women with children to get alternative accommodation immediately, or are they left on the streets?

Mr. Hare: As I said in my reply, nobody was rendered homeless. So far as the decision to evict these people is concerned, it was taken after a series of serious incidents—a series of murders, in the case of the first eviction, culminating in the murder of a United Kingdom police sergeant; and in the second case it followed a planned ambush of British troops, in which a bomb was thrown from the upper storey of a building, causing the death of a British soldier.

Mrs. L. Jeger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any reduction in the number of these regrettable incidents as a result of these evictions?

Mr. Hare: No, and I do not know whether the hon. Lady can say whether there would not have been more incidents if these measures had not been taken.

Situation

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what decisions have been reached with Sir John Harding about the future of Cyprus;
(2) what proposals he is now considering for the re-opening of negotiations on the future of Cyprus;
(3) if he will consider calling a round table conference in London on the future of Cyprus to which leaders of the Greek and Turkish communities might be invited to meet with representative Members of both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has now completed his discussions on the situation in Cyprus; what terms he is prepared to accept; what is the difference between his demands and the Cypriots' offer; what representatives of the Cypriots he is prepared to meet; and if he will take the initiative by stating that he is prepared to meet them at any time so that the bloodshed can be brought to an end.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Governor of Cyprus.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what fresh instructions have been given to Lord Radcliffe over the drafting of a constitution for Cyprus.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My colleagues and I had a full exchange of views with Sir John Harding, who returned to Cyprus on Friday. This covered both matters of administrative detail and general policy. The important policy questions will be the subject of a Government statement at the appropriate time. As the Governor said on his return, there are no points of disagreement between us.

Mrs. Jeger: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the "appropriate time" to which he refers will be very soon? Is he aware that there has been a large number of conjectural articles in the Press, and that there is a great deal of anxiety both in this country and Cyprus which it would help to resolve were an official statement made soon?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to my reply except to repeat that the appropriate time will be the appropriate time.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is not the only judge of what is the appropriate time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that we have exercised great patience in this matter? It is now some considerable time since we had a debate and while I know that there are delicate matters of negotiation involved, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are anxious to bring these negotiations to a head as quickly as possible in order to save any more loss of life and denigration of the British reputation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is also anxious to bring the negotiations to a successful as well as an early conclusion.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Meanwhile, can my right hon. Friend alleviate widespread anxiety by giving us an interim assurance that there is no question of truckling to violence? Can he give a further assurance that British policy will not be dependent on the virility of foreign Powers?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can give my hon. Friend a complete assurance on both those points.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that, so far as Cyprus is concerned, at some time, somewhere, somebody, must meet somebody else and negotiate a settlement? Will the Minister bring these two together in order to stop this slaughter going on any longer?

Mr. Shinwell: Referring to the right hon. Gentleman's observation about the appropriate time for making a statement, may I ask whether that appropriate time will be before the Recess? If it is not, difficulty may ensue, and, after all, hon. Members are entitled to know what is happening?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think I am taking too great a risk if I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I believe that to be true.

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Castle.

Mr. Awbery: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the next Question.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why he will not agree to asking the United Nations to hold a referendum in Cyprus to ascertain the views of the islanders on the future of this island.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Because I do not believe that the hon. Member's suggestion is one which, as he implied in a Question on 6th June, would be a means of bringing peace and tranquillity to Cyprus.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister whether, if he does not think the idea contained in the Question is a good one, he can in fact suggest a better method?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to my earlier statement.

Treaty Rights (Publicity)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that our case for adhering to our treaty rights has not been sufficiently emphasised either in Cyprus, the Middle East or the United States of

America; and if he will accordingly take action to remedy this omission.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In Cyprus, constant emphasis has been given to our care for adhering to our treaty rights in broadcasts from the Cyprus Broadcasting Service in English, Greek and Turkish, and in printed publicity material distributed in Cyprus in all three languages. The official overseas information services of Her Majesty's Government include a great deal of news and information about Cyprus. The content of the services directed to the United States and Middle Eastern countries is not the responsibility of my Department, but my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the British case is well presented through those services.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that our right to be in Cyprus is unassailable, is my right hon. Friend aware, in spite of the very full answer to my Question, that not all the communities in Cyprus are satisfied with the presentation of our case, and that neither am I? Will he therefore have another look at the matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assure the hon. Lady that it is under constant review.

Mr. K. Robinson: Since the right hon. Gentleman admits that the case has been properly presented, does not the fact that the case is not accepted anywhere else in the world—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—suggest that it is a singularly bad case?

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Coffee Growing (Limitations)

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present restrictions imposed on the growing of coffee by European, Asian and African planters, respectively, in Kenya; and when these restrictions were imposed.

Mr. Hare: My right hon. Friend has asked the Governor for the very fullest information on this and will circulate a reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged for that reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Mathu gave notice in the Kenya Legislative Assembly in May that he


would move to repeal the limitations imposed upon the growing of coffee by Africans? I understand that such coffee-growing is limited to 100 trees and certain areas. We have tried to obtain this information for a very long time, and on occasion the House has been misled.

Mr. Hare: I will certainly endeavour to give the House the information as quickly as possible.

Rural Wages and Conditions

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the minimum wage payable to an adult worker employed on a farm in Kenya; the maximum number of permitted hours a week; the estimated normal wage actually being paid for a normal week; and whether Government officers have instructions to refrain from witnessing employment agreements when they appear unfair to the worker.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is no statutory minimum wage in rural areas. Average total monthly emoluments on farms and ranches are estimated to be 60s.—of which 31s. represents the cash wage—and 80s.—of which 37s. represents the cash wage—respectively. An employee may also make additional income through the use without charge of his employer's land for cultivation and stock grazing. Hours of work are not controlled, but are estimated to average 39 hours in a six day week. Magistrates and attesting officers may refuse to attest a resident labourer's contract which does not provide for fair remuneration.

Mr. Hale: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any instructions of any kind are given as to what is fair remuneration? Upon the figures which he has just given, 7s. 9d. a week is apparently the cash payment for a man. Time after time we have produced in this House employment agreements which provide that other members of the family must also work, which means that the average figure is very much smaller. What instructions are given to these attesting officers, and what steps are taken to provide decent wages?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Magistrates and attesting officers can refuse to attest any wage which does not provide fair remuneration in money, having regard to local wage rates. In regard to the general question of rural wages, a Rural Wages

Committee was appointned by the Government last March, following the Carpenter Report upon African wages, and as soon as I receive information about its recommendations, I will let the House know.

Mr. Bevan: Is not it a fact that even here, in Great Britain, when a class of workers find themselves unable to defend their standards of living against economic or other circumstances, the law steps in to protect them? If this is the case in Great Britain, is it not much more necessary in Kenya, where all kinds of other disabilities exist? Is not this evidence of the background to all the appalling things which have been happening in Kenya?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not dismiss so easily the whole basis of the Mau Mau conspiracy. I have no reason to think that these wages are very disproportionate, but I am awaiting, as are the Government of Kenya, the recommendations of the Rural Wages Committee. As soon as I get them we can have a profitable talk about the question.

Mr. Bevan: I have not said that this is the background to the whole of Mau Mau, but I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not evidence of the fact that there is appalling neglect of ordinary human understanding here, that these conditions should persist year after year when in Great Britain, a highly-organised country, this House passed laws to protect agricultural workers, for example, long years ago.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is a great mistake to try to relate figures of one country with those of another. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Committee's Report.

Detention Camps

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action was taken by the Governor on the representation made to him by Mr. S. A. Morrison, secretary of the Christian Council of Kenya, regarding conditions in detention camps in the Colony.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Since early in 1955 there have been meetings, as and when requested by the Christian Council of Kenya, between the Governor and representatives of the Council, including Mr. Morrison, to discuss any representations


they wished to make on matters connected with the emergency. The Council has on occasion raised specific issues connected with detention camps but has made no representations on this subject since October, 1955. I am informed that the Council representatives are satisfied that on all the matters they have raised there has been a full investigation by the Kenya Government and that action has been taken where shown to be necessary.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that in October, 1955, Mr. Morrison made charges very similar to those which have now been made by Miss Fletcher? In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has appealed to Mr. Morrison as some evidence in the case of Miss Fletcher, will he not ask for this report to be in his hands so that he can investigate those charges, made more than eighteen months ago?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Naturally I saw the report at the time and spoke to Mr. Morrison about it. The difference between Mr. Morrison and Miss Fletcher is that when he knows that remedial action is being taken, Mr. Morrison says so publicly, but Miss Fletcher repeats charges which might have had some substance of truth in them some time ago but in many cases are wholly untrue today. The Answer that I have given was approved by Mr. Morrison and, within the last thirty-six hours, by Bishop Beecher as well.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he read the Press of the country, especially, very often, the Press which supports the party opposite, he would discover that these newspapers now state that he has been grossly misinformed about the facts in Kenya?

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action was taken on representations made by Miss Eileen Fletcher whilst rehabilitation officer in Kenya to superior officers in reports on Narok camp, dated 5th January, 1955, Langata camp, dated 23rd December, 1954, Gilgil camp, dated 12th February, 1954, and in her progress report, dated January, 1955, and in other reports to the commandant which complained among other things of the presence of unaccompanied children of

four years and seven years of age in detention camps, absence of blankets, risk of Mau Mau contamination through inadequate segregation, the employment of juvenile girls in breaking stones, and instances of brutality.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am examining Miss Fletcher's published statements in the light of comments she has made on them in discussions at the Colonial Office. I am also examining in this connection copies of Miss Fletcher's reports and the comments of the Government of Kenya. As I have already stated, I will make appropriate arrangements to let hon. Members have access to all this information when it has been completely assembled.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the large number of reports in which Miss Fletcher made her complaint to the appropriate authority in Kenya, will the Colonial Secretary now withdraw his statement in the House on 6th June that there is no record whatsoever of her ever having brought to the notice of the Ministry which employed her the alleged conditions of which she now complains?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the hon. Member had better wait and see when the material is presented. I think that he will be rather surprised.

Mwea Development Scheme

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many acres of the land included in the Mwea Development Scheme in Kenya are now under crop.

Mr. Hare: There are now 350 acres of rice under crop. A futher 420 acres are to be planted during the year with rice, maize and groundnuts.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister of State aware that when I was studying the scheme in Kenya last October, I was assured by people on the spot that it was expected to have 1,000 acres in crop by March, before the long rains? As this figure has not been reached, could the right hon. Gentleman explain why there is this very unfortunate delay in pressing ahead with schemes for the resettlement of landless Kikuyu tribesmen?

Mr. Hare: As I have just heard one of my hon. Friends behind me mention,


it is sometimes not wise to hurry too quickly in these matters of agricultural experiments. This is part of a pilot scheme, and it is hoped that the first block of 5,000 acres will be cleared fairly soon, and that the second block of 6,000 acres will be ready about the end of this year. Meanwhile, we are quite pleased with the progress that has been made.

Belgian Congo Workers

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what circumstances it has been agreed to bring labour from the Belgian Congo or Ruanda Urundi into Kenya.

Mr. Hare: The Kenya Government are considering a proposal to introduce a limited number of workers from the Belgian Congo to alleviate the shortage of labour in the sisal, tea and sugar industries, but have not yet reached a final decision.

Mrs. White: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is an astonishing thing, in view of the over-population of many rural areas in Kenya, that labour should be brought in from outside? In particular, is it not most ill-advised to suggest it at the very moment when we are awaiting a report on agricultural wages, and will this not upset the workers already in Kenya and make them think that their conditions are being depressed?

Mr. Hare: I do not think so. I should like to emphasise to the hon. Lady that the Government will have to satisfy themselves that the employment opportunities suitable for released detainees are not prejudiced.

Prison Compounds (Juveniles and Young Persons)

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken in the prison compounds of Kenya to separate from women offenders, children and young persons serving sentences of imprisonment for offences; whether solitary confinement of children and young persons remains a punishment for misbehaviour in prison; to what extent children and young persons are given education and training in useful occupations in the place of hard labour; and to what extent men are employed as warders in the women's prisons.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Segregation from adult prisoners of young persons in prisons is mandatory under the Juveniles Ordinance, and in the cases of children detained in prisons during the Governor's pleasure segregation from adult prisoners is one of the conditions of such detention; juveniles, and by this I mean young persons under 18, are subject to prison discipline and can be sentenced to solitary confinement in the case of aggravated or repeated prison offences; of the twenty-one females under 18 at Kamiti four have undergone sentences of solitary confinement.
All female juveniles in prison receive education and vocational training; male juveniles are employed on gardening and building work and about a third receive some education. A prison industry section is to be established at Langata where male juvenile prisoners will be taught useful trades and all will be given elementary education; male warders are employed as guards in the outer perimeter at Kamiti, but are not employed in the women's compounds.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the Secretary of State now recommend to the Kenya Government some enlightened regulations for prison administration, that there should be some segregation of young persons from the senior prisoners, that the punishment of solitary confinement should now be abolished, that definite steps should be taken for the instruction of young persons and that education and training should be part of the prison course?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have sympathy with the thoughts behind the right hon. Gentleman's question. I think that he will find that action has been taken on most of the subjects he covered. I must stress the fact that some of these juveniles are very tough customers indeed, and in one particular instance mentioned in the House solitary confinement brought to an end a drastic series of mutinous incidents.

Mr. Bevan: How long are the sentences of solitary confinement?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They are limited. The maximum sentence which can he awarded is 16 days, of which no more than seven days is served continuously and an interval of seven days must elapse


before a further period of the sentence is served. If penal diet is also awarded, the periods and intervals are four days.

Young Female Prisoners

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will take steps to ensure that the ages of African Kikuyu girls are ascertained by medical examination before being finally sentenced in court in Kenya; and when it is his intention to provide an approved school for female convicts under 16 years of age in this Colony.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I mentioned in reply to the hon. Member's Question on 20th June, research into the problem of determining the age of an African juvenile has so far disclosed no method of making an exact determination by medical examination. It would therefore be unwise to place exclusive reliance on medical evidence. Where the age of the prisoner is relevant to the sentence the courts have a duty to determine, on all the evidence available, including medical evidence if the court considers it advisable, whether an accused person is a child—under 14—or a young person—14–17 inclusive—and they always give the benefit of any doubt to the accused.
Female prisoners under the apparent age of 16 years are held in a special compound at Kamiti prison which has all the facilities of an approved school and is supervised by a female rehabilitation officer. The Kenya Government propose to transfer this compound from the control of the prison authorities to that of the Principal Probation Officer as an approved school.

Mr. Johnson: Without commenting on the allegations or arguments made by Miss Fletcher, may I ask whether it is not a fact that if Kenya had an approved school for girls—either for girls under 14, or for girls over 14—as there is for boys, 90 per cent. of the time and temper of the House in the last few weeks would not have been expended?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would be a good thing if there were such a school, but I am not so hopeful as to believe that that by itself would stop misrepresentation.

Mr. Paget: In view of the fact that the Mau Mau situation is now well in hand and that there are no facilities to

look after these 16-year-old girls properly, may I ask whether the safety of the Colony really requires us any longer to keep them detained or in prison? Why cannot they have an amnesty and be let out?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Mau Mau situation is largely in hand because of the courage and sense of duty of the people of Kenya, and I think that the Kenya Government can be trusted in this as in other regards.

Detention Camp, Saiyusi Island

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the prisoners held in Saiyusi Island, Lake Victoria, are convicted criminals or detainees; and how the rate of 8s. per month paid to them for a 42-hour week, compares with that paid for work of a similar nature in the district in which the camp is situated, due allowance being made for the value of housing, rations, and clothing supplied by the detention camp authorities.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They are detainees. The cash wage of 8s. a month is related to the average gross monthly emoluments for agricultural labour which are 55s. The value of rations, clothing and necessaries and time spent on the maintenance of the camp, for which no payment is due, is assessed as 30s., 6s., and 11s. a month respectively.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are 11,000 homeless families in the Kikuyu reserves who are dependent on the earnings of these people detained on Saiyusi Island? Does he consider that the amount these prisoners can remit is sufficient to enable those people to live even on a low standard? Do the Government make any arrangements for their well-being?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the hon. Member should know that the families concerned are not dependent wholly on any remittances from the men concerned, but considerable responsibility obviously falls on the tribes to whom these people belong.

Mr. Rankin: If the families are not dependent on husbands and fathers, on whom are they dependent if the right hon. Gentleman is doing nothing in this matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member is inclined to assume that practices which prevail in the United Kingdom also obtain in tribal areas in Kenya.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA AND TANGANYIKA

Game Poaching

Major Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the increase of game poaching in Kenya and Tanganyika, he will increase the penalties particularly against receivers and the illegal export of ivory.

Mr. Hare: The measures needed to check the activities of poachers and receivers, including the deterrent effect of existing penalties, are at present being specially studied by the Governments of Kenya and Tanganyika.

Major Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that although the Government of Kenya and the Wild Life Society are doing their best to preserve wild life in Kenya, there is great difficulty in checking smuggling; and it may well be that the best method of checking it would be to make the game not worth the candle, and that that applies particularly to ivory smuggling to the coast?

Mr. Hare: I agree, and it is for this reason that a committee has been set up in each of these two territories.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA

West India Regiment

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the decision of the British Guiana Legislative Council not to participate in the proposed re-formation of the West India Regiment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Finance Committee of the British Guiana Legislature agreed in principle last October to the participation of British Guiana in the re-formation of the West India Regiment. In February of this year, a resolution to this effect was moved in the Legislature itself, and on a division the voting was equal and the motion was lost. The Governor is now considering the position further.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that British Guiana is missing a great opportunity if it does not take part in the re-formation of this very old-established regiment, which has a very honourable tradition?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I very much hope that on further examination they will come to the same conclusion, but I think it is a matter for local settlement.

Employment, United States of America

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with arrangements for the recruitment of farm labour from British Guiana for the United States of America.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Her Majesty's Government are still in touch with the United States authorities about this. I am not in a position to make a statement at present.

Constitutional Proposals

Mr. Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has received from political parties in British Guiana regarding the recently announced proposals for a new Legislative and Executive Council.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have received representations from both factions of the Peoples Progressive Party expressing dissatisfaction and proposing discussions.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Secretary of State accept the fact that all the political parties with mass backing in British Guiana have completely rejected his proposals? Will he reconsider them to permit real democracy to operate?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have said before, the Governor is ready to discuss these proposals with political leaders, but I do not propose to receive a deputation upon them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICA

Kariba Hydro-Electric Scheme

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the financial contribution to be made to the Kariba Hydro-Electric Scheme is to be borne by the Colonial Development Corporation.

Mr. Hare: The Colonial Development Corporation have been authorised to lend £15 million, which will represent about 19 per cent. of the cost of the first stage of the project.

Sir R. Jennings: May I ask my right hon. Friend if it is a fact that the Italians have got the contract for carrying out this scheme? If so, is it not right that this country should see that its money should be spent in developing its own industries, instead of encouraging Italian industries?

Mr. Hare: That is really not relevant to this particular question. All I can assure my hon. Friends is that Her Majesty's Government have been in consultation with the Federal authorities and are satisfied that the arrangements made for United Kingdom contractors are fair ones in competing for this new business.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask how the Minister reconciles this decision to invest £15 million in the Kariba Hydro-Electric Scheme, which we welcome, with the Answer given by the Secretary of State last week, when I suggested that some sum of this kind should be invested to prevent that deal which we discussed last week? Last week, we were told that it was quite impossible to invest £15 million of C.D.C. money in Trinidad oil, because of the need of the money elsewhere. Now, we find that £15 million is being invested in one scheme. Would not that have been appropriate last week?

Mr. Hare: I do not think that what happened last week is appropriate to the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask whether it is not a fact that, despite the fact that the greater part of the money for the Kariba scheme is being provided from this country, the main contract for £20 million has already been let to the Italians?

Mr. Hare: I am afraid that the question of the actual details as to who has got the contracts and so on is not one that comes within my Department. It is a Federal Government matter.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend correct in saying that the question of who gets the contracts is not relevant to the Question? Is it not an astonishing thing

that, at a time of acute capital shortage in this country, we should be providing a vast sum of money in order that developments may be undertaken by a foreign Power?

Mr. Hare: I am sorry. I hope that my hon. Friend does not misunderstand me. I said that the question was not relevant to the Question on the Order Paper, which asked what proportion of the financial contribution to the Kariba Hydro-Electric Scheme is to be borne by the Colonial Development Corporation.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Minister if he will answer my question? I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was responsible or not, but whether he was aware that the main contract for £20 million has been let to the Italians? Does he know that, or is his Department grossly ignorant?

Mr. Hare: No, Sir. I am not in a position to answer any questions about the letting of contracts.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

Merger

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to ascertain the views of the people of Malaya and Singapore on the question of merging the two territories which are now separated politically but are geographically, culturally and economically, one unit.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is not a matter in which Her Majesty's Government would wish to take any initiative except at the request of the elected Governments of both territories.

Mr. Awbery: Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will favourably consider any request which comes from both the Federation and Singapore as far as the merger is concerned?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to the statement which I have made on this matter. The initiative must rest with the elected Governments themselves.

Government Posts (Malayans)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Division 1 posts in the Government services


in Singapore and Malaya are held by expatriates and by Malayans, respectively; how many Malayans are expected to be recruited by the end of 1957; and what steps are being taken to prepare Malayans to fill these positions by a system of Malayanisation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In Singapore, expatriates hold 406 Division 1 posts and Malayans 370; in the Federation of Malaya, the respective figures are 1,808 and 809. I cannot predict how many Malayans may be recruited by the end of 1957. Initial vacancies are always filled by locally born candidates whenever suitable and qualified, and the problems of systematic Malayanisation are now being closely studied by the Governments of the two territories.

Mr. Awbery: In view of the rapid development towards self-government in the Federation and in Singapore, is the Minister satisfied that Malayanisation is going on fast enough to meet the circumstances?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SARAWAK

Constitution

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Attorney-General of Sarawak intimated in a broadcast talk that Sarawak will not necessarily be granted a constitution corresponding to the terms of the Resolution of the Council Negri of 7th September, 1955; whether the wishes of the members of the Council Negri are to be considered; and when the text of the new constitution will be published in order to provide the people of Sarawak with adequate opportunity for its consideration before enactment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Attorney-General, very properly, wished to make it clear that Her Majesty could not be committed in advance to detailed approval of the prayer contained in the Council Negri's resolution. The wishes of the Council Negri as expressed in that resolution are, of course, being followed to the greatest possible extent in drafting the new constitution. In accordance with normal practice the text of the constitutional instruments will not be published before enactment.

Mr. Sorensen: Will not the Secretary of State agree that it is highly desirable that the expressions of opinion and proposals by the indigenous assembly should be followed very closely and taken into closest consideration? Does he not feel that it is necessary to publish the full text of the constitution?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I quite agree that it is most important that the views of the local people—and here, above all, the Council Negri—should be very much taken into account. The resolution of the Council asks for a constitution on certain lines, which it set out. It is then for the legal adviser of the Sarawak Government and myself as Secretary of State to translate those proposals into legal terms. Constitutionally this is the way it has always been done, and it is much the best way in all the circumstances.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, before the enactment of a new constitution for Sarawak, the Council Negri will be given an opportunity formally to propose the text of an appropriate preamble to the constitution.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not consider this to be necessary or appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY

Anglo-German Agreement (Discussions)

Sir J. Hutchison: asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) from where any fissile material for reactors sold to the Federal Republic of Germany will be supplied; and what will be its nature;
(2) where reactors to be sold to the Federal Republic of Germany are to be manufactured;
(3) what contracts have been concluded with the Federal Republic of Germany for the sale of reactors; and the size of such reactors.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): A provisional order has been placed with a British firm for a small research reactor of the swimming-pool type by one of the German Lander, but this is subject to an agreement being reached between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany covering the supply of fissile material and the


reprocessing of spent fuel elements. If this agreement is concluded, and the order confirmed, the reactor will be manufactured by the firm concerned and the fissile material, in the form of manufactured fuel elements, will be supplied by the Atomic Energy Authority. The material will be uranium enriched in the isotope U.235 up to a maximum of 20 per cent. U.235.

Sir J. Hutchison: I am sure the country will be pleased to hear of the reply of my right hon. Friend and that some progress is being made in selling reactors abroad. Can he say whether this agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany covers a wider area of research and development than the sale of these reactors?

Mr. Butler: It is important for my hon. Friend and the House to realise that the agreement has not yet been finally reached. That is why I used the expression
A provisional order has been placed.
Discussions are proceeding between the United Kingdom Government, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Atomic Energy Authority.

Mr. Stokes: Are we to understand from the first Answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the enriched uranium, of which we are in short supply ourselves, is to be supplied from this country, or is it more likely to be sent from the United States of America?

Mr. Butler: If first an agreement is made and then this order goes through, it will be supplied by the Atomic Energy Authority.

Mr. Stokes: Where will it come from?

Nuclear Science and Equipment (Uniform Nomenclature)

Mr. Neave: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of the need to introduce a uniform nomenclature of equipment used in nuclear research, and industrial development of nuclear energy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir. An expert Committee of the British Standards Institution, assisted by the Atomic Energy Authority, is engaged in the preparation of a uniform nomenclature covering the field of nuclear science and equipment.

Her Majesty's Government are also giving their support to a programme which has been drawn up by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation for establishing a uniform nomenclature amongst its member countries.

Mr. Neave: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he expects the British Standards Institution to publish a report and, if so, when it is to be expected?

Mr. Butler: The glossary of terms will he published in due course, but, in view of the number of items to be covered, it is not yet possible to say when.

Atomic Energy Authority (Annual Report)

Mr. Neave: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects the Atomic Energy Authority to publish its Annual Report for 1955–56.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It is expected to lay the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's Annual Report for 1955–56 before Parliament towards the end of July.

Mr. Neave: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the need for the Authority to publish its Report at a more convenient time for debate in Parliament than just before the summer Recess? Will he encourage the Authority to choose a more suitable time to publish in order that the Report can be considered by this House?

Mr. Butler: The first year's Report of the Authority was published in November, 1955, which was found to be an inconvenient date. A great effort was made therefore to speed up the Report to July. I cannot undertake that it will be possible to speed up the next Report beyond July, but I will certainly make an effort to put these matters before my noble Friend, and will bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend.

Nuclear Reactors and Components (Export)

Mr. Neave: asked the Lord Privy Seal the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the export of nuclear reactors and components.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of the export of nuclear reactors


and components by British industry. The immediate opportunities lie in the export of research reactors, for which some orders have already been secured, but the progress made in the application of nuclear energy to the production of power should put British industry in a good position to compete for export business in power reactors.

Mr. Neave: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say what agreements, if any, have been made with Commonwealth countries for the sale of nuclear reactors or other plant?

Mr. Butler: One British firm is at present constructing a research reactor in Australia. Of course the sale of reactors is a commercial matter for the manufacturers concerned.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it possible to get some agreement with the United States by which we would supply the machinery and they would supply the fuel because, unless the two go together, we shall be at a great disadvantage?

Mr. Butler: I can only refer to the agreements already reached with the United States of America, of which I will send copies to the hon. Member.

Nuclear Explosions

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal in what way the results of nuclear test explosions for war purposes differ from nuclear explosions for the peaceful use of atomic energy; and to what extent the latter type of explosion is contemplated.

Mr. R. A. Butler: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind such results as radio-active fall-out, there is no reason to suppose that the results of explosions differ according to whether their purposes are warlike or peaceful. Nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes are not contemplated by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have proposed in the Disarmament Sub-Committee that eventually nuclear explosions for war purposes shall be prohibited, but that nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes shall be allowed under international control, how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that position with the fact that

he has just stated that there is no difference between the two types of explosion?

Mr. Butler: I can only state what is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, namely, that nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes are not contemplated.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent the development of the peaceful uses of thermo-nuclear energy is dependent upon experimental thermo-nuclear explosions.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 20th June to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason).

Mr. Warbey: May we take it that that reply covered thermo-nuclear explosions as well as atomic explosions, and that therefore it is now possible to dispose completely of the argument that it is necessary to explode a hydrogen bomb in order to obtain research data on the peaceful use of hydrogen energy?

Mr. Butler: I should not like to follow the hon. Member in the points which he has put; I do not think they would be correct. The reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley on 20th June referred primarily to the atomic field.

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. In that case the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Anglo-United States Agreement

Mr. Stokes: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the agreement signed in Washington on 14th June with regard to the exchange of atomic information between the United States of America and the United Kingdom, which includes information concerning submarines driven by atomic energy; and whether he will now make further representations to the United States Government with a view to obtaining a supply of enriched uranium for use in weapons built in this country.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes"; to the second part "No, Sir". The Agreement of June, 1955, to which the recent Agreement is an amendment, specifically excludes military materials.

Mr. Stokes: I know, but is the Lord Privy Seal aware that once one is in possession of enriched uranium, the next step to making a war weapon is comparatively simple? A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman told us that we are to supply enriched uranium to Germany which, I gather from his evasive answer, will probably come from the United States. That being so, and in view of the fact that it is in short supply here, why should we go on spending almost as much money in competing with our friends as in protecting ourselves against our enemies? Surely it is a ridiculous position.

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman started his supplementary question by saying that he knew and ended by saying that it was a ridiculous position. I should like to put those two remarks together in his own mouth, because from the Government point of view it is not a ridiculous position. We have signed an Agreement with the United States to obtain this exchange for the purpose to which I have referred in my Answer, and we cannot extend the Agreement beyond the supplementary Agreement which has been made.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask whether none of the enriched uranium procured from the United States is to be sent on to Germany?

Mr. Butler: I should want specific notice in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an exact reply to that question.

Sir J. Hutchison: Is it a fact, as has been insinuated from the benches opposite, that we are in short supply in respect of either uranium or enriched uranium? Are we likely to be in short supply in respect of enriched uranium in the future?

Mr. Butler: As we have to look so far ahead for prospective programmes, I could not give an absolutely accurate reply to that question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for One hour after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — VALUATION AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the new Clause (Liability to rates of owner of unoccupied lands and heritages) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. James Stuart.—[Mr. J. Stuart.]

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The following Amendment to the Motion stands on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser)—at the end to add:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 5, page 6, lines 36 and 37, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Willis; and the new Clause (Apportionment of payments received by the council of a county under Part V of the Local Government Act, 1948), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Thomas Fraser.

New Clause.—(LIABILITY TO RATES OF OWNER OF UNOCCUPIED LANDS AND HERITAGES.)

5
(1) Where a rating authority are satisfied that the owner of any lands and heritages which have become unoccupied within their area is without reasonable cause allowing those lands and heritages to remain unoccupied, they may, after giving to such owner notice in writing of their intention to do so, levy upon him, in respect of the period commencing on such date as may be specified in the notice (not being earlier than six months from the date of the notice) and ending on the date on which the lands and heritages cease to be unoccupied, such proportion (not exceeding twenty-five per cent.) as may be so specified of the rates which would have been payable for the said period in respect of the lands and heritages by an occupier thereof.


10
(2) Where the owner of any lands and heritages is aggrieved by the decision of a rating authority to levy any rates upon him in pursuance of the foregoing subsection he may, not later than six weeks from the date of the notice sent to him under that subsection by such authority, appeal to the sheriff against the said decision, and the sheriff shall have power to confirm, vary or annul the decision of the authority, and his decision shall be final.


15


20
(3) This section shall have effect notwithstanding anything in section two hundred and forty-three of the Act of 1947, and the provisions of section seven of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, relating to the right of the owner of a small dwelling-house to claim repayment of occupiers' assessments shall not apply as regards any dwelling-house in respect of any period for which rates are levied upon the owner thereof in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section.—[Mr. J. Stuart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
We have later to deal with the Report stage of the Bill, we have much to do and I will not take up a great deal of time on the new Clause. For a detailed explanation of it and the reasons which

In view of the discussions which have taken place, I should not be justified in accepting the Amendment as it stands, but I could accept it if the hon. Member moved the recommittal of the Bill in respect of the new Clause dealing with apportionment of payments.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, at the end to add:
and in respect of the new Clause (Apportionment of payments received by the council of a county under Part V of the Local Government Act, 1948), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Thomas Fraser.

Mr. James McInnes: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

have prompted the Government to place it upon the Notice Paper, I refer the Committee to the Report of the proceedings in Standing Committee which is a considerable work, and, in particular, to col. 1001 of 10th May, in which is stated the Government's view of this matter. I also refer hon. Members to paragraph 148 of the Sorn Committee Report. I will not spend time in quoting, but perhaps


I might remind hon. Members of the conclusions of the Committee on this subject, as given in paragraph 148:
We therefore recommend that it should be dealt with
—that is, the rating of unoccupied property—
by a provision to the effect that the local authority may after due notice levy such proportion of the new single rate on the owner as they may sec fit where they are satisfied that he is not genuinely seeking to let a lettable dwelling-house. Their decision, as in some other housing questions, should be subject to appeal to the sheriff.
As I have said before now, the Bill as drafted follows the advice tendered by Lord Sorn's Committee. It was the Government's intention to follow that advice in drafting the Bill unless there were very strong reasons which compelled them to adopt some other course.

I admit quite frankly that the provisions incorporated in the new Clause were not in the Bill as originally presented to the House, for certain reasons. One of the reasons, very briefly, was the fact that on 30th June last year, as reported in col. 590 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, the House refused to accept a Clause in the English Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, now an Act of Parliament, providing that unoccupied property should be liable to rates and that in England and Wales the owner should pay the rates of such property in precisely the same way as the occupier pays them, there being no occupier.

The proposal in the new Clause is quite different from that in the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) last June. As hon. Members who were in the Standing Committee on this Bill will know, I was pressed on this point and, in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), as reported in col. 1001 of the 10th May, I said:
However, in spite of these considerations to which I have referred, I realise, as did the Sorn Committee, that there is a case in favour of the proposition that a property owner who has by his own action kept a lettable property unoccupied for a considerable time, should make some contribution towards the cost of the public services, such as the police and the fire services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 10th May, 1956; c. 1001.]

As a result, the new Clause was placed upon the Notice Paper. My difficulty arises from the fact that one of the objects of Clause 16 is to deal with owners' rates,

as any hon. Member will find if he studies the Bill. I accepted that principle, but I wanted to meet the case put to me without breaching that principle more than I could help.

It was not what might be called a simple operation. As a result of tabling this new Clause representations have, of course, been made to me, both orally and in correspondence, accusing me of breaching the principle of Clause 16. I should like to put the matter in another way and to ask the Committee to consider it from a different point of view, and I hope that in doing so I may be able to carry most of the Committee with me some of the way.

In my view, and I have given a lot of thought to this, an unoccupied dwelling or building—or whatever the lawyers choose to call it—is still property of value and should be taken care of. For instance, in the case of a fire in any part of the country one would not, if one had time, instruct the fire brigade to do its utmost to put out the fire and, at the same time, tell the firemen "You need not bother about No. 11 or No. 15 because it happens to be unoccupied." [An HON. MEMBER: "No. 10."] No. 10, if one wishes—I see the point. I am at No. 3 of another street. As I say, one would not give such an instruction, but would try to save the whole street.

I therefore suggest to the Committee that what the new Clause aims at is to make provision that the owner of an unoccupied dwelling should after a reasonable period, as specified, in which to find a tenant or to dispose of the house otherwise to someone who will occupy it, pay a fair and reasonable charge towards the services provided by the local authorities at the public expense; that is to say, rate-borne expenditure and Exchequer contribution affecting the whole body of taxpayers throughout the country.

The main argument refers, of course, to the fire services, but the police were also constantly referred to, although an unoccupied dwelling which is, presumably, not furnished is not such a good subject to break into as an occupied one. I also included water, for the very good reason, in my opinion, that a good water supply is something which most fire brigades prefer to have at their disposal when trying to deal with a fire.

For those reasons, we have endeavoured to draft a Clause which, I hope, in a fair and reasonable manner and with proper and reasonable safeguards meets the points which were put to me. I suggest to the Committee that this is in the nature of an insurance premium to be paid in respect of unoccupied property.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: Too high.

Mr. Stuart: If the owner thinks that the proportion of the rates charged on the property, within the 25 per cent. which the local authority may charge, is too high, he has his right of appeal. I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that. As I say, this is in the nature of an insurance premium which the owner pays on this valuable asset because, after all, houses have value—or most of them have. It is an insurance premium or, if the Committee prefers, it could be described as a protection charge against fire, burglary, and so on.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. McInnes: I was surprised to hear the Secretary of State indicate that he had had difficulty in incorporating such a Clause as this into the Bill having regard to the fact that the English Bill did not contain a Clause of a similar nature. Surely he realised that south of the Border there is no such problem. This problem, which is extremely acute, is confined almost entirely to Scotland and does not exist throughout the United Kingdom.
Ever since I entered this House I have tried, by way of Question and debate, to destroy, shall I say, what I regard as a ruthless and anti-social practice indulged in by factors and property owners in Scotland. That practice is to keep thousands of houses unoccupied, unlet, because of a desire to sell rather than to let. I want very briefly to recall circumstances that brought about the inclusion of this Clause, and then to submit that it is an anaemic Clause, one which is of no use and which in no way meets the demands of the Opposition.
Let me at once make it quite clear that I am not denying to factors and property owners the right, the freedom or the opportunity to sell houses during a

reasonable time after they become unoccupied. What I object to is that between 3,000 and 4,000 houses in Scotland are at present being kept unoccupied without reasonable cause for periods of 8, 10, 12—even 18 months. I regard such a practice as being almost criminal, the more so when we realise the extent of Scotland's housing problem.
As I have frequently asserted, I regard Scotland as perhaps the worst-housed country in the whole of Europe. We still need about 400,000 houses. In the City of Glasgow alone, although we have built 100,000 municipal houses, there still remain on the waiting list no less than 112,000 applications. Glasgow today has 40,000 homeless families and in such circumstances I think it criminal that we should still find in that city nearly 2,000 houses standing unoccupied for periods such as I have indicated.
It is not merely a matter of factors and property owners exploiting the housing shortage. There is also the question of the exorbitant charges which are demanded for these empty houses, existing as they do in old and dilapidated property. Tragic circumstances follow for those who, stupidly enough, pay these exorbitant prices. I could give illusstration after illustration, as indeed could hon. Members opposite, of young married couples who, in their desire to obtain what we all desire to obtain—a house in which to live—are paying £300, £400 or £500 for a two-roomed house. They settle down in it, and in a matter of three or four months along comes the city engineer and condemns the property as dangerous. Out go the young married couple, and down the drain go their whole life's savings which have been invested in that house.
During the earlier stages of the Bill my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and I put down an Amendment designed not to deal harshly with the factors and property owners, not to impose a severe penalty, although we may have desired to impose such a penalty, but merely to act as a deterrent against this practice of keeping houses unoccupied for a year and sometimes as long as a year and a half.
I was very glad when the right hon. Gentleman indicated in Committee that if we withdrew our Amendment he would be prepared to look at the matter and


bring in a new Clause to deal with the situation almost in accord with the general line set out in the Sorn Committee's Report. In the main, the Government accepted all the recommendations of the Sorn Committee, but they did not accept this one. That Committee, after its very exhaustive inquiry into the whole situation, came forward with the recommendation that where it was established that without reasonable cause, property was being kept unoccupied and unlet, the owner should become responsible for the rates.
But the Bill as it stands would mean that the owner would not be required to pay a single penny in rates. That is even worse than the situation which exists today. Today, an owner who keeps houses unoccupied for any length of time over 12 months becomes responsible for the whole of the owner's rates. If the property is kept unoccupied for three months but for a period not exceeding 12 months, he becomes liable for owner's rates and a proportion of the occupier's rates. Indeed, the remission that he gets from the occupier's rates is less than one-third.
As I said, my right hon. Friend and I withdrew our Amendment. We naturally expected that the Secretary of State would bring forward a Clause which would meet the situation adequately, but I must say that I am very disappointed with the Clause that he has produced. It bears absolutely no relation to the recommendation of the Sorn Committee. It does not meet our demands in any way, nor does it fit in with the general scheme of the Bill.
The Clause has many weaknesses. The first is that local authorities "may" give notice. It is permissive rather than mandatory. I think that that is a weakness. Knowing local authorities in Scotland as I do, there is every chance for them to escape their responsibility in this matter. I am disappointed to find that the right hon. Gentleman's Clause suggests that only 25 per cent. of the rates payable by the occupier should be charged. What possible justification can there be for that, when one recognises that these owners are keeping houses unoccupied without reasonable cause? If a person keeps a house unoccupied without reasonable cause, surely there is every justification for exacting from that person the maximum of rates that may be in operation in that locality.

Mr. J. Stuart: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the education rate, for example, does not come into it.

Mr. McInnes: There is more than education that does not come into it, but there are many other things which do come into it and which the 25 per cent. would not possibly cover. It is no use trying to chip and chop here, and cut out there, and put in something somewhere else. The simple, straightforward method is the best method and will be more easily understood by local authorities.
I know the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty; I can appreciate it. He finds himself in the position of trying to meet the demands of the Opposition while, at the same time, he is confronted by a few reactionaries on the benches opposite who are demanding that absolutely nothing should be done. I suggest that he should pay little attention to those reactionaries. Those are the people who would have us back to the old system of the Poor Law and the workhouse if they had their way. They have not yet joined us in the twentieth century.

Mr. William Hamilton: They look like it, too.

Mr. McInnes: I regard the right hon. Gentleman as being fair-minded and reasonable. Indeed, I think he has a reputation for being fair and for not wanting to tolerate an injustice. I say that quite honestly. I hope that in that spirit the right hon. Gentleman will at least tell us that he is prepared to consider favourably the Amendments that we have on the Notice Paper; indeed, I hope that he will not merely consider them favourably, but will accept them in order to strengthen his Clause in such a way that it will not only discourage but will destroy this pernicious practice that exists in Scotland.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) would regard me as a reactionary. It is true that I opposed at once any suggestion that a new Clause on these lines should be introduced when my right hon. Friend told us in the Scottish Grand Committee that he proposed to consider the matter and to introduce such a Clause at a later stage. I am bound to tell the Committee that


I still oppose the Clause when I have seen it, and perhaps even more strongly than I imagined I would have to.
I oppose the Clause for reasons largely of principle. First, to reimpose owners' rates in this way violates an established principle—established in Scotland and certainly in England and Wales—that the liability for rating arises normally when there is beneficial occupation. Rates are levied in respect of occupation, and time and time again the courts have shown that the occupation must be of value before the rate is levied.
There have been many cases about this. I call to mind one particular case tried in England during the war, which I will quote because I think it is the most typical of them all. It was the case of a firm which took houses as an emergency measure in case it should be bombed out of its offices. It paid the rent upon those houses throughout the larger part of the war. It never occupied them. The local authority levied a rate, and the company appealed against the rate. The appeal was upheld on the ground that there was no beneficial occupation.
4.0 p.m.
To reimpose owners' rates, in whatever form they be imposed—I recognise, of course, that this is a maximum of 25 per cent.—is bound to discourage private enterprise building, because people are unlikely to build if, while looking for a buyer, they have to pay 25 per cent. of the rates upon the empty property. I am quite certain that if sanity is to be restored to our housing economy, it is essential that as soon as we can we should get away from the subsidised local authority house back to the unsubsidised, private enterprise house.
I am being deliberately telegraphic in what I have to say because I know we have a great deal of business before us, and I am anxious not to delay the Committee.
Thirdly, it seems to me that this new Clause was introduced upon the flimsiest evidence. My right hon. Friend spoke about the Sorn Report. The only paragraph which refers to this matter is paragraph 148, where we read that if owners' rates are abolished unoccupied property would not be rated at all, which, says the Report, is as it should be.
Then, in a most extraordinary way, it goes on to express an entirely opposite view, basing it upon the opinion of a single unnamed member of an unspecified local authority. There is no evidence, but just the remark that it has been suggested to the Committee by an unnamed individual, a member of an unspecified local authority, that it might be a good thing in the circumstances to impose a rate.

Mr. McInnes: The Committee was convinced by it.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: No one on this side of the Committee would seek to deny that there are unoccupied houses at present, but in so far as there are such unoccupied houses they are unoccupied despite the fact that owners presently pay rates upon them. They remain unlet not because of any lack of demand for rates, because the owners are still paying rates upon them in Scotland, but because of the operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts, which prevent owners from letting properties at economic rents.
The remedy seems to be not to seek to reimpose owners' rates upon such properties, a thing which the Sorn Committee, after hearing evidence from witnesses among whom there was, as the Report says, "a striking degree of unanimity", castigated as an
unnecessary and harmful complication in the Scottish system of rating which … impedes the provision of housing and the growth of industry.
The remedy is not to go back to that harmful complication in our system but to amend the Rent Restrictions Acts. For about 40 years, everybody who has advocated rating reform in Scotland has objected to rates on owners of unoccupied houses. To preserve owners' rates as a feature of the law cuts right across the main purposes of the Bill which we have been considering for so long.
My right hon. Friend reminded the Committee that this matter had been discussed in the House of Commons only last year. It is not the first occasion that an attempt has been made, always by the Labour Party, the Opposition of the day, to impose a rate on unoccupied property. In Committee on the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, an attempt was made to levy rates upon unoccupied property. That proposal was rejected. A


Private Member's Bill, in 1936, made the same proposal and the proposal was again rejected. In Committee on the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill of 1955, the House of Commons rejected by 133 votes to 175 a proposal to levy a rate upon unoccupied property.
I have never said that Scotland ought slavishly to follow England and Wales, but it seems to me that in a matter of this kind the law in Scotland ought to be on all fours with the law in England and Wales. If it is not, it will do great harm to the country which makes the innovation, and it will particularly discourage the coming of industry to our country.
My right hon. Friend referred throughout his speech in introducing this new Clause to its operation upon rents and upon houses. Never once did he mention factories. Never once did he mention shops or offices. It is remarkable that although the arguments adduced in Committee and adduced this afternoon by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Central have all been upon the basis of the need to levy some rate or charge upon dwelling-houses, the Clause itself goes far beyond that and applies to every kind of heritable property in Scotland.
It applies to factories. It might be said that factories only pay 25 per cent. anyhow of the net annual value because of the effect of derating, so that the levy of 25 per cent. upon that does not matter at all. But everyone in the Committee must be aware of all the talk there is in the House and in the country about the possibility of rerating industrial heritages. If we were to rerate industry, it would mean that there would be this possibility of a 25 per cent. rate hanging over the heads of all owners of factories or industrialists who might be considering whether they would go to Scotland or to somewhere else, perhaps to Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] This is not fanciful by any means.
Everybody knows the fierce competition there is to bring industries into different places. Everyone knows the pull which the Development Areas exert because of special concessions made to industrialists. Everybody knows how attractive it is to industrialists to be able to go to the new towns with their modern houses, country surroundings, and other features and amenities which are attractive to the

people who work in the factories. Everyone knows how hard Northern Ireland is trying to secure industry.
That is the sort of competition we are facing. If we in Scotland, deliberately, with our eyes open, impose this burden upon industrialists, we really shall not get them to come to our country. If industry is to be attracted to Scotland, we must not impose this impediment. I have been as brief as I can. For all those reasons, I most strongly object to this new Clause.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) with interest. They seemed to me to be fallacious.
In the first place, there is no obligation to rate the factory that stands empty. The Clause is permissive; that was one of our disagreements about it. The rating authority "may" do so, after giving notice in writing to the owner.
The second argument was about house building. I was surprised that the hon. Member adduced the argument once again that the proposed new Clause will prevent the building of houses in Scotland. The Clause is so weak that a house might stand empty for a very long time before anything is done, while the local authority is making up its mind whether to place a rate on the property or not. Even then the local authority has to give six months' notice.
In present conditions, any house that is offered for sale at a fair price is bought quickly. The reason that houses do not sell is that the price demanded is unreasonable or extortionate. People are asked to buy for £400 or £500 property that is practically worthless. We have heard that that is happening in Glasgow and I know that the same thing is done in Edinburgh. Any hon. Member seeing the condition of some of these houses might wonder whether they ought to be occupied at all, never mind being offered for sale.
I hope that we shall not hear again the argument that because England and Wales have done something Scotland ought to do the same. We can always produce a better Bill than the English, who are far too woolly and muddly about these things. It is a characteristic of the English that they muddle through. Many


of their Bills muddle through. We are not satisfied with that kind of thing and I do not accept that argument. We have the exceedingly serious problem of thousands of houses standing empty while people need them. We have made many attempts to deal with it. The proposed new Clause provides a method of doing so.
I could not understand the argument of the Secretary of State that the rate should only be up to 25 per cent. for the reason that the properties are using only the fire service and the police service. I think he said that the owners should pay the water rate. That is not really the argument. It is that by acting anti-socially and demanding an unjust price the owner is preventing a tenant from entering the house and paying the full rate. By his action, the owner prevents someone making his contribution to all these services of the local authority.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at his argument, which is not sound. If an owner is not acting anti-socially and unjustly, the local authority will not make him pay the rate. He must be acting against the best interests of the community by denying somebody else an opportunity to make his full rate contribution, in which case he ought to be liable for that rate contribution.

4.15 p.m.

Sir Ian Horobin: This is a very bad Clause. As an English Member I resent very much the way in which an important principle, which must in due course affect England, is being introduced. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has had to leave. I hope he will return. I want to address my remarks, as an English Member, purely to this aspect of the matter.
One of the general principles of this reform in Scotland has been to assimilate to a considerable degree the Scottish rating system to the English system. The rights and wrongs of the matter I do not propose to refer to. It is impossible to introduce any change of principle in this way without bearing very much in mind the inevitable consequences to the English system. It has always been the view hitherto in England that rates should not be imposed upon vacant and unoccupied

property, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) has pointed out. If the arguments that have been put forward for the proposed new Clause are sound, why do not they apply in England?

Hon. Members: They do.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Bill is limited to Scotland and we are dealing with a proposed new Clause applying to Scotland.

Sir I. Horobin: I propose to keep my remarks strictly in order. The arguments for this being a good Bill for Scotland apply absolutely without change to its being a good Bill for England. Therefore, we must consider them, as hon. Members, whether we sit for Scotland, England or Wales.
The Government have decided over and over again that those arguments are bad in principle. I view with the greatest concern what appears to be a running away, in a minor piece of legislation, from that position. I do not believe that one English hon. Member in fifty has the vaguest idea of what we are doing today, because this is supposed to be a Scottish Bill. The arguments which are proposed in support of the new Clause will, if they are not carefully watched, debar the Government from opposing a similar change for England and Wales.
On the question of reasonable cause, I would like someone on the Government Front Bench to tell us whether it would or would not be reasonable cause if an owner of a house said, "I do not want to rent, I want to sell." His reasons may be good or bad. Would it be a proper exercise of the discretion of a court to say that it is unreasonable of the owner to refuse to let? Every hon. Member whether English or Scottish, can see the implications of this question. It is the sort of reasoning which has hitherto prevented us from applying this bad principle to English rating.
I want to refer to the 25 per cent. proposal. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who are such authorities on English rating, are not here. I do not think they would disagree that they, and certainly other hon. Members on that side of the Committee, are violently opposed to any proposal to link


the rate charge to some proportion of local authority expenditure, whether for the fire service, the police service, or any other service. That has been argued very forcibly today. They have always taken that view. We cannot but expect that this provision made now solely for Scotland may be attempted in England at some time in the future; and likewise the 25 per cent. rate proportion, which it is proposed shall be paid upon unoccupied premises, may be increased.
In previous debates on the question of the rating of unoccupied premises it has been argued, as it has been forcibly argued today by hon. Members opposite, and even admitted by the Government, that it is not practical and reasonable to attempt to say that such and such a hereditament absorbs only such and such amounts of the local authority's expenditure and ought not to have to contribute to the rest. I am not saying for the moment that I agree with that, for that is not important at the moment. What is important is that the Opposition think that and hitherto the Government have thought that, and if we are not careful, just as this new proposal to rate unoccupied premises may be introduced into England, so also may the 25 per cent. at some time be increased even up to 100 per cent., and we shall be back to owners' rates not only in Scotland, but in the United Kingdom as a whole.
There may not be objection to that among hon. Members opposite, but we certainly object to it. We certainly object to owners' rates. We thought, some of us who are English Members, that we might, by turning up here today to vote for the Bill, possibly help Scotland to escape from them, but we certainly do not want to saddle England with them.
The way this Clause has been introduced, by a side wind, to make a change in what hitherto has been Government policy, dating back, in England anyway, indefinitely, seems very improper, and I would—I hope in a not too unfriendly spirit—warn the Secretary of State that he has not heard the last of this proposal. The more people get to know what is being done, in a casual attempt to speed up the dilatory proceedings of the Scottish Grand Committee, the stronger the objection to this Clause will be.

Mr. John Rankin: Will the hon. Member go into the Lobby to vote against it?

Sir I. Horobin: If anybody goes into the Lobby against it, I will certainly do so.
This Clause is a bad Clause, contrary to Conservative principles of rating. [Interruption.] This is supposed to be a Conservative Government. Is it indecent to refer to Conservative principles when my remarks are intended for the consideration of a Conservative Secretary of State? It is a thoroughly bad Clause to which I strongly object, and if there is a vote against it I shall certainly go into the Lobby against it.

Mr. Douglas Johnston: The Secretary of State, in explaining the Clause to us, explained the difficulties he had in reconciling the Clause with Clause 16 and the attacks that had been made upon him by his hon. Friends for what has been called a breach of principle. I should have thought that the Secretary of State's proper reply to those attacks would have been to have reminded the attackers of the parable of the buried talent—

Mr. Rankin: In Premium Bonds.

Mr. Johnston: —and to have explained to his attackers that the man who buried his talent hardly got the commendation which he expected, but was regarded as a sinner.
We are delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin). As far as I know, it is the first time he has intervened in a Scottish debate. I sympathise a good deal with what he has said, particularly the latter part of it, but much of his speech arose from a complete misapprehension of the history of Scottish rating. It is quite different from the English.
The Committee may recollect that in English rating the principle of liability arising from beneficial occupancy started with a Statute of Elizabeth I, and it was only if there was beneficial occupancy that there was any liability for rates, and it was the occupier who was always rated. That is not so in Scotland. Rating in Scotland arose and was first levied on owners because rating was a method of raising local finance, and it was raised


not upon occupancy or upon income but upon capital. It was only, I think I am right in saying, at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century that occupiers were first called upon to pay any part of the rates.
I do not think the Secretary of State would regard himself as in any way bound by the English principle of beneficial occupancy, and I do not think that, in transferring the liability now upon owners to occupiers, he thinks he is trying in any way to assimilate the law of Scotland to the law of England. They are still distinct and apart. Even the word "occupancy" in England is very different from the word "occupancy" in Scotland.
What I have said applies in answer also to the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), who is, if he will permit me to say so, much more familiar than appeared from what he said to the Committee with the rating system of England than with that of Scotland. The two systems are poles apart and should never be compared. So I hope the hon. Member may rest content with the English system while we rest content with the system we have.
However, all that is far from saying that I am satisfied with the Clause. I wholly agree with the criticisms of the dreadful words "without reasonable cause". I am aware, of course, that they have been used on numerous occasions. On numerous occasions they have ended in litigation in the House of Lords. The Clause is really a lawyers' dream as it stands at present. If anyone doubts that, let me give him a few examples, and if anyone thinks the examples are farfetched I suggest he looks through the latest book on valuation and rating in Scotland. I remind the Committee that we are concerned here not with dwelling-houses only, but with all sorts of hereditaments.
I start the examples, again with the preface that this is the type of case that can arise, with that of a grouse moor. A grouse moor is let, let us say, at a rental of £1,000 a year, and has been let for many years. The owner of the grouse moor, who has never shot over it himself but has always let it, becomes converted by the propaganda of the Society of Feathered Friends and refuses to let the

moor ever again. Nor does he shoot over it himself. I wonder, is that refusal to let because of his dislike of killing grouse a reasonable cause within the meaning of the new Clause? Is it, or is it not? Perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland or the Lord Advocate, who are both here, and the Secretary of State, who, I think, sometimes does or used to shoot grouse, will tell me.

Mr. Walter Elliot: No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us some examples of such a case as this which he can draw upon from his own experience. He would not, I am sure, be attempting to keep the Committee with a purely hypothetical and even fanciful case. He must have some examples of this in mind.

Mr. Johnston: Oh, yes, I have more examples. I use this as the first one. It is not fanciful, because in many valuation and rating cases one is concerned with deer forests or grouse moors and properties like that.

Mr. Elliot: rose—

Mr. Johnston: I am not going to give way again, because I am anxious to ascertain from the Government, particularly from the Law Officers and the Secretary of State, whether this is or is not a reasonable cause. Can I have no answer?
4.30 p.m.
Suppose the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate were called upon to advise the owner of the estate, who had been asked to pay rates because of the determination of the Argyllshire valuation authority. How would they advise the owner on his propects of an appeal to the sheriff? The only way I can suggest is that they would consult those books of reference which told something about the practices and habits of the sheriff and would ascertain whether he shot grouse or was a member of a zoological society.
There is also this very curious result that in Argyllshire an appeal is refused while in Caithness and Sutherland an appeal is allowed. That, surely, is absurd. Perhaps that is a far-fetched example, but it shows the width and absurdity of the Clause. Let me come to something nearer. Company X buys premises adjoining its present factory, with the purpose of extending its premises in five or ten years'


time. It makes no use whatever of the premises bought. It does not even put in a caretaker. It just allows it to stand empty. Is that or not "without reasonable cause" within the meaning of the Clause? What is the answer? I am looking for a nod or a shake of the head from occupants of the Government Front Bench, or does silence mean "I do not know"? This is really shocking.
Here is another example. Company X owns a block which contains two shops. The lease of the first falls in now, and the lease of the other is to fall in in five years' time. The company sees great opportunities of development of the site as a block when the second shop falls vacant. Is that a good or a bad reason for allowing the first shop to fall vacant? Is it "without reasonable cause" within the meaning of the Clause? What is the answer this time? How would the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland advise their clients in those circumstances?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) has an Amendment on the Notice Paper dealing with this question of "reasonable cause". Although I have been a Member of the House for a very much shorter time than has the hon. and learned Member, it strikes me that it is quite inappropriate to put up Committee points on the Second Reading of the Clause. I am certainly prepared to answer these points. They are perfectly simple, although extremely far-fetched. Unless the hon. and learned Member can think of better ones he will not convince me or anybody else. I am certainly prepared to answer his points at the appropriate stage.

Mr. D. Johnston: I had not been called to order by you, Sir Alan, and, therefore, I thought it quite proper to put questions about the ambiguities of the Clause now. I am a little surprised at the tone of the Solicitor-General for Scotland in replying to these questions which he has, of course, not answered any more than he has answered the question put by his hon. Friends.
I can give further examples, but I will not weary the Committee. It is clear that these words "reasonable cause" have no precise meaning. All they do is to add

to the income of those of us, perhaps including myself, who practise in the valuation courts.
The Clause also provides that this is permissive, which means that in one part of the country the rate will be levied and in another part it will not. I had always understood that it was the principle of taxation law that tax should be imposed on all who are in equal circumstances, but that is not so here. It is entirely discretionary not only whether the tax is imposed, but the rate at which it is imposed. Surely that is altogether remarkable. Is there any precedent for it at all? I confess I know of none.
In these circumstances, what we want to do is to accept the Secretary of State's Clause but be prepared to make very substantial alterations late this afternoon, and that is how I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to deal with it. I hope that the Secretary of State will realise that the difficulties which I have put are not fanciful but real and that he will accept Amendments which are designed to give clarity and force to the Clause.

The Joint-Under Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): The principle of the Clause is that if an owner chooses to leave his property unoccupied, then, after some time and if there is no reasonable cause in the opinion of the sheriff, he has to pay some charge in recompense for the cost of the police and fire services and the loss of occupier's rates and this charge should not be more than 25 per cent. That is the principle which we have been discussing.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) raised the acute problem of the practice of keeping houses unoccupied and unlet. We think that this, although it is a problem, is not primarily one of valuation and rating. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) said, there is some force in the contention that the problem lies in spheres other than valuation and rating. Therefore, we felt it wrong to incorporate in the Bill the special, full provisions that would be necessary to meet this temporary local housing difficulty, however real. But the Clause does deal partially with this situation and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has explained


why he has not gone as far as hon. Members opposite would wish.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus underlined quite frankly, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, the difficulties which my right hon. Friend has had in framing the Clause. The example which my right hon. Friend quoted in the first part of his speech I think would be covered in this Clause by the words "without reasonable cause". The effect on private house building, about which my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus was worried, would be nil, because new buildings are exempted from the Clause. My hon. Friend also referred to the evidence in the Sorn Report on this matter as "flimsy". I think that, like myself, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central knows that the evidence cannot be described as flimsy.
The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) raised the question of "reasonable cause". My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has intervened to say that he will deal with the point on the appropriate Amendment, and I know better than to answer "Yes or "No" to any legal question. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus was concerned about the effect on Scottish industry. I hope that the Committee will allow me, if I deal a little more fully with this now, not to deal with the same point, as perhaps could be done, on a later Amendment.
If business is good the Clause will not operate unless it suits the industrialist. If business were bad then there would be reasonable cause and consequently there would be no charge. I cannot believe that any industrialist would be deterred by the Clause from acquiring a factory in Scotland. Nobody acquires a factory without all the attendant capital expenditure. And does he do that with a view to keeping it empty? Surely he would only keep it empty if there were reasonable cause. Of course, he might buy it in order to keep out a competitor, in which case why should he not incur a charge?

Mr. Rankin: Would that not be reasonable cause?

Mr. Browne: I said, why should he not incur a charge?

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman gave a legal judgment a few seconds ago, as he will see if he reads his speech tomorrow.

Mr. Browne: If this factory owner or manufacturer did want to do so, and was able to keep the factory empty without reasonable cause, it would not be this Clause which would matter; it would be the expense not of a quarter of the occupier's rates but the much heavier costs of maintaining an empty factory—of insurance, maintenance, watchmen and the like.
There is another side to this picture. If a firm had to concentrate its activities, and had to close its Scottish factory, these provisions might well have a beneficial effect on Scotland in that the proprietor of the empty factory might be encouraged to make special efforts to find an occupier, thus bringing to, or keeping in Scotland employment that might have been provided elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East was concerned about the Scottish Standing Committee creating a precedent. I would remind him that we have had owner's rates in Scotland for the last hundred years and that they have not filtered to England yet. However, he dealt with what I think is a serious point. In considering legislation for the country for which he is Secretary of State my right hon. Friend has often to allow for special factors peculiar to the needs and interests of the Scottish people that have no parallel in England and Wales. In many such cases we in Scotland take our own line and sometimes, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East said, we believe that we have done a better job than our partners across the Border. Certainly, in Standing Committee it is not for want of trying if we do not.
In the principle of this Bill we have discarded a century-old valuation system in favour of England's, which shows that we are prepared to follow the example of England if it is wise for Scotland. However, I do not think that anyone would wish that Scottish legislation should slavishly follow a pattern set by England, nor should this Committee of the whole House feel that in agreeing to any particular policy for Scotland, by so doing it is binding this House to pass similar legislation applicable to the broader English and Welsh scene.

Mr. Elliot: I am sure that we would fully agree with the sentiments just expressed by the Joint Under-Secretary of State in respect of this piece of legislation. I only wish that the Government had had more courage in enunciating and carrying through the same views when an attempt was made, which is still in progress, to assimilate the law of capital punishment in Scotland to that in England. However, I do not wish to pursue that point, because it would be out of order. Yet hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are sometimes so keen about not assimilating the law of Scotland to the law of England, should remember that this works in many other cases than in the cases to which they are particularly attached.
I am sure that the principle here in Scotland is quite different from the principle in England and, what is more, that it ought to be. The conditions are different in Scotland, and it would be a great pity if this Clause were to go forward supported merely by the Government and by the rather tepid and lukewarm approval of the Opposition, with no voice raised in its favour on this side of the Committee.
4.45 p.m.
It is not true that there is unanimous opinion against it by Conservatives. There is, in fact, sound Conservative support for the proposal which is here enunciated. I only say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) that I do not think he should fear the leakage of these principles across the Border. There are many cases in which the two sides of the Border have proceeded on separate lines, with great advantage to both sides.
I followed the rather fanciful argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) on the subject of a hypothetical owner of a grass moor who had been hypothetically converted by a hypothetical parson preaching a hypothetical sermon, and his mock indignation when no hypothetical answer was given in reply to his parenthetical case. But we were listening for the simple answer: was the hon. and learned Gentleman for or against? I understand that he supports the Conservative proposal here brought forward, though he wishes to amend it in Committee, as, indeed, many of us do also.
Finally, I come to a point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), a near neighbour of mine, on the question of the houses remaining unoccupied and the difficulty in which we are all placed, in my constituency as well as his, by those cases. Surely that matter is dealt with by existing legislation. I have here a copy of the relevant legislation, the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. It is there laid down that the local authority may acquire any of those houses, and, therefore, the dilemma which the hon. Gentleman raises as to the unjust withholding from the property market of those empty properties is not really valid because, if a local authority so decides, it can now under the existing law take over those properties.

Mr. McInnes: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that what he is suggesting is that the Glasgow Corporation should now acquire property that is 100 and 130 years old, which in a few years' time it will be able to acquire for nothing?

Mr. Elliot: The first point is that if the corporation acquired it, it would be done either by agreement or at a valuer's price, which would take into account all the factors mentioned. But there is a much stronger argument. The hon. Gentleman and his party have brought forward the proposal that all properties are to be acquired by all corporations throughout the country. His remedy for all these evils is that all the properties, of whatever age, should be forthwith acquired by the corporation in question.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument holds water. I say that there is at present legal power to deal with the really difficult point of the house being kept out of the property market indefinitely by a totally unreasonable landlord. I say that we have in addition proposals here by which a charge may be levied upon the owner of a property to meet certain risks and dangers towards which the owner of the property should make some contribution.
I do not think that it is a question, as the hon. Member for Govan said, of attaching narrowly the portion of a rate to a particular charge, but simply that a charge in general is made for the amenities which the owner of the property at


present enjoys, and enjoys to his very great advantage, even if the property is kept empty.
Therefore, I say that I think the Clause is sound in itself. I do not think that we need discuss at the moment whether it would be an advantage in other countries or not. I think that as applied to our own country it is a sound proposal, and I propose to support it in the Division Lobby.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in line 1, at the end to insert:
to which the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restriction Acts, 1920 to 1939, apply".
In the undertaking that my right hon. Friend gave to the Committee upstairs when he was introducing a Clause on these lines—an undertaking which any hon. Member can read in column 1001 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Scottish Standing Committee and in the following pages—he said that he would give effect to the general lines of the recommendation of the Sorn Committee's Report. But the Sorn Report, as I have already reminded the Committee, refers only to this matter in paragraph 148 and concerns itself only with dwelling houses. Moreover, in the Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) proposed an Amendment, which my right hon. Friend said that he would implement in his own way and in his own words, which was confined to dwelling houses. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) based his case on houses, and he wanted the recommendation of the Sorn Committee's Report implemented.
In none of those speeches was there any suggestion whatsoever that the Clause which my right hon. Friend undertook to bring forward would go wider than that and would, in fact, deal with commercial premises, farms, grouse moors, factories and all other heritages throughout Scotland. In spite of that, my right hon. Friend has come down without any kind of warrant from the Sorn Committee's Report, to which he pays so much attention, without any pressure from anybody on either side of the House, and

without a voice being raised by any single individual in the Committee in favour of imposing this charge on factories and other commercial properties, with a proposal to rate factories and commercial buildings which happen to be vacant for upwards of six months. That is a deplorable proposition.
One of the advantages of the fact that we had a fairly full Second Reading debate on the Clause was that some of us have been able to go over the ground already, and I do not propose to delay the Committee by going over the case again. Let me say that the competition from Development Areas, from new towns and from Northern Ireland to industrialists to induce them to come and start factories is so strong that I fear that we in Scotland will have little chance of attracting new industries and new factories if we impose this prospective burden upon the owners of industrial premises.
The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) gave the Committee some entertaining and hypothetical examples, all of which might well have been true. I agree with him entirely that these rating cases are based on just the kinds of examples he gave. He spoke about grouse moors, shops, extensions to factories and so on. Every one of those cases would be excluded if this Amendment were accepted and if the operation of the new Clause were limited only to dwelling-houses.
So far, I have based my case on the need to confine the operation of the new Clause to dwelling-houses and to exclude factories and other commercial properties. Even if we were to do that, we would still be faced with the problem of the large houses, and they are a real problem in Scotland as elsewhere. There have been all too many cases of houses of which the owners have had to remove the roofs in order to avoid paying rates. I met only last weekend in Scotland an owner who was, I think, a past owner, who removed the roof from a large house, a perfectly appointed house with a great many bath rooms and most up-to-date appointments, because there was no use to which he could put it and no use to which it could be put by any authority to whom he was able to offer it. There was a house that was liable to rates.
This problem applies, and would still apply, to the large houses if we were to extend this Clause to dwelling-houses. I want to limit it not only to dwelling-houses but to the smaller houses, the kind of house that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling-shire had in mind when they made their speeches on Second Reading. I want to limit it to the kind of houses covered by the Rent Restrictions Acts.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I agree with my hon. Friend for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) that the Sorn Committee's Report recommended limitation of this provision to houses, but the Sorn Report did not limit it to houses subject to the Rent Restriction Acts. I think the Committee will agree on reflection that it would be quite illogical to restrict this provision to houses.
The general principle underlying the Clause is that if any owner leaves any property vacant without reasonable cause, relying on police protection and perhaps on water, fire and lighting services, and depriving the local authority of an occupier's rates he ought to contribute something towards the rate fund. There is no case, in the view of my right hon. Friend, for drawing a distinction between smaller properties and large houses and factories and shops. No hardship will be brought about. If for any reason there is no demand for the letting or the purchase of the property, the owner would have reasonable cause for not becoming liable which would cover the case mentioned by my hon. Friend. This Clause lays down a minor and novel principle, that a charge in very exceptional circumstances can be made on an owner by a rating authority. The principle is clear and straightforward. Because the Amendment cuts clean across this principle, I ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr. John Hay: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin), I am a rather unexpected visitor to this sort of debate; but I am rather worried about the new Clause to which we have now given a Second Reading. I am all the more worried because of what the Joint Under-Secretary has just said. The tone in which he announced the Government's

rejection of the Amendment contrasted very greatly with the tone he used when he tried to persuade us to accept the new Clause. Then he was all reasonableness and sweet blandishments; now it is a dogmatic and vigorous rejection.
The whole case is that we must have some kind of compulsion placed upon the owner of property in Scotland because the property is not being let. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and others have throughout said that this is because houses, small houses in particular, are not being let. This is not a problem that is purely Scottish, despite what has been said by several hon. Members. It is a problem with which we are clearly familiar in England and Wales. As my hon. Friend said earlier, it arises because of the Rent Restriction Acts which apply to the whole country. That is why properties are not being let. Owners are trying to sell houses so that they may realise the capital locked up in them. That is why I urge that this Amendment be accepted.
I do not like the new Clause. Despite all the blandishments that we have had from the Front Bench, I have very severe and critical doubts about whether or not we should find that this precedent which is being set in Scottish legislation would not, in the course of time, creep over the Border.
5.0 p.m.
I do not like the idea, but we can limit it if we accept my hon. Friend's Amendment and make sure that it does not apply to factories, offices, shops, commercial property, grouse moors and all the other more native aspects of Scottish heritages but is kept strictly to the small houses for which the case, such as it is, has been made. I very strongly urge the Front Bench to reconsider its attitude. If it will not do so, I think some of us who represent English constituencies would wish to support my hon. Friend in the Lobby.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. Rankin: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out "without reasonable cause".
It has been pointed out that the non-liability of the landlord for rates has led to two very serious evils. The first is the keeping of unoccupied houses out of


circulation, and the second is the compulsion to which, in many places, people are subjected, in their desire to get a home, to invest in this type of property, which is often almost derelict.

Mr. J. N. Browne: As we are discussing "without reasonable cause", I wonder, Sir Alan, whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), in line 9, at the end to insert:
Reasonable cause" shall mean either—

(a) that the said owner is unable to sell the said lands and heritages at a price not exceeding that determined by the district valuer; or
(b) that the said owner is unable to let the said lands and heritages at a rent not exceeding the gross annual value.

Mr. D. Johnston: I have no objection to that course.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Alan Gomme-Duncan): I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss the two Amendments together.

Mr. Rankin: I did not catch the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston).

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman agreed that his Amendment to line 9 should be discussed with the Amendment to line 2.

Mr. Rankin: I have no objection to that. If I interpret the second Amendment correctly, it seeks to express a definition which is absent in my Amendment. Mine is general. I am agreeable to discussing the second Amendment as well if my hon. and learned Friend is agreeable.

Mr. A. Woodburn: The hon. and learned Member for Paisley has agreed.

Mr. Rankin: Then I have no objection to the course which has been suggested.
During the Committee stage, the Secretary of State indicated his appreciation of the evils about which I have spoken and which are not disputed on either side of the Committee. He said:
… there is a case in favour of the proposition that a property owner who has by his own action kept a lettable property unoccupied

for a considerable time, should make some contribution towards the cost of the public services such as the police and the fire services.
The right hon. Gentleman took the further step of offering:
… to table a proposed new Clause giving effect to the general lines of the recommendation made by the Sorn Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 10th May, 1956; c. 1001.]
The Sorn Committee's recommendations are in paragraph 148 of its Report. It recommends:
… that the local authority may after due notice levy such proportion of the … single rate on the owner as they may see fit where they are satisfied that he is not genuinely seeking to let a lettable dwelling-house.
As a result of that recommendation and the Secretary of State's recognition of the evils, we are presented with the new Clause.
I have certain criticisms to make of the Clause. My first one is general. Although the Secretary of State made a firm promise in Committee to seek to meet the difficulties inherent in the Bill, the new Clause is so devised that it will not work. This is because the time table involved in working the Clause is bad. Any house that comes within the scope of the Clause could be left unoccupied for a year or longer, and very little could be done about it.
I should say that that is the desire of the Government benches. A subsequent Amendment in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite shows that they wish to delay the operation of the Clause, for they seek to delete "six months." and substitute "twelve months" to make absolutely sure that the Clause will not work. The real difficulty about the operation of the Clause is to be found in the words "without reasonable cause".
Suppose a landlord says he will not let his house unless he gets a good tenant. That can be regarded as a perfectly legitimate attitude to take and one against which a sheriff would scarcely pronounce. Every landlord wants good tenants. Local authorities have certain houses which they let only to people whom they regard as good tenants, and there are certain houses which are reserved for others. A practice which is approved for local authorities can hardly be condemned for others. If the landlord, having a pride in his house, says he wants a good purchaser or tenant,


he can, under the Clause, delay until he gets what is, in his estimation a good purchaser or tenant. No sheriff who had to decide an issue of that nature would come down against the owner or the factor.
An owner or factor might have personal reasons which would come within the definition of "reasonable cause". He might have personal reasons which it would be difficult to dispute. He might have reasons of price. No one could quarrel with the attitude of an individual who had made up his mind that unless he got a certain price he would not part with the house.
In terms of the Clause, it is not unreasonable to assume that a landlord might say that he wanted to put his house into a certain condition of repair, which might take longer than he had imagined. It might take six months or a year. He could be held up by all kinds of delays in carrying out the repair of the house to meet his desire to put it into a good, habitable condition.

Sir I. Horobin: Does the hon. Member consider that unreasonable in property management? I should have thought that he was giving almost a definition of good property management.

Mr. Rankin: I am not saying that it is unreasonable. These are perfectly legitimate reasons for a landlord to put forward to the sheriff, in which the sheriff could support him, to nullify the working of this Clause, which proposes to bring houses into the market for letting or for selling. By means of all these methods, a landlord could legitimately keep a house out of circulation and his action upheld in the sheriff court.

Sir I. Horobin: I do not understand the hon. Member. I hardly believe that this argument would appeal to his hon. Friend behind him.

Mr. McInnes: It certainly does not appeal to me.

Sir I. Horobin: Then I leave it at that.

Mr. Rankin: The fact that it does not appeal to my hon. Friend may be a reason for supporting it. All these arguments might reasonably be adduced to keep a house out of the market. In other words, they could become excuses for enabling

an owner to get round the Clause. They could lead to interminable delays.
In my view, therefore, the words "without reasonable cause" should be taken out and the time factor would then be the determinant. That is why a later Amendment by my hon. Friends and myself suggests cutting the time limit from six to three months. If the only effective factor in the operation of the Clause was the time factor no one could evade it. The Clause is so devised as to permit delay after delay for one reason or another, good or bad, and so defeat the purpose which the Secretary of State said he had in mind when dealing with the matter in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) may not agree with that. Nevertheless the Clause, instead of affording a method of allowing our views to operate, is a method whereby they may be frustrated.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. McInnes: I am not showing any antipathy to my hon. Friend's argument, but I put this simple proposition to him. Would all the cases he has cited as illustrations not arise equally if the words were left out?

Mr. Rankin: Not necessarily. It is around these words that the argument would be centred in court, but if the time factor alone applied there would be no argument.
If an individual was given three months within which to meet all the demands that, as a landlord, were placed upon him, but had not fulfilled within that time, he would be subject to the stated penalties. To define "reasonable cause" is exceptionally difficult. I cannot imagine a definition which would allow the Clause to operate as I, for one, should like to see it operate and not at the same time provide the landlord with all these excuses with which the Clause now provides him and which would frustrate the desire of those who wish to see houses presently kept out of use brought back into circulation.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) in his Amendment. I am amazed at some of the statements I have heard both during the Committee stage and today. When


the Bill was introduced, we heard a good deal about uniformity. One of the ideas in abolishing owners' rates was to have uniformity in Scotland, and that is the purpose of the Bill. Now, we have a new Clause which would permit of a certain proposition by the sheriff. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) ably pointed out, one local authority will be doing one thing and another local authority something else, and a vegetarian sheriff will do one thing while a teetotal sheriff might do another, so that in this matter uniformity will not exist in Scotland. The Clause, therefore, breaches the principle of uniformity.
In the five years I have been in Scotland, many people have come to me for advice and I have accompanied them to look over property which was for sale. One of the biggest obstacles to buying property, as I have had to tell people, is that if they were to pay, say, £300 for it, they would need to spend another £400 to put it into decent repair. If the owners of some of the property did their job and put it into a saleable condition, it would not remain empty far long. Much property is empty because people try to sell it in a terrible state of disrepair. That is why it remains empty and cannot be sold.
Not long ago, there was an uproar from hon. Members opposite because a lady had been evicted from a farm which she was not using in the national interest to produce food. With the present chronic housing shortage, why do we allow people to have their houses empty, sometimes for years? It is not because there is no market for them, but because they are kept in a state in which no one will buy them.
I saw a property, for which the man who bought it paid £600, which was in a really disgraceful condition. He had already spent £150 to make it reasonably fit, but I am certain that within three years, viewed according to the standards which obtain in the south in regard to decoration and fitness for human habitation, that house would be condemned, and the £750 would be wasted.

The Temporary Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to relate his argument to the words of the Amendment, namely, "without reasonable cause."

Mr. Bence: We are also discussing the qualifications of that definition, Sir Alan. I hope that no property owner will tell a sheriff that he is not selling or letting his property because he cannot get the money he wants or, because he has a bond or an overdraft upon it at the bank. If he does, I hope that he sheriff will be able to say, "I do not expect that you will ever be able to sell it." I hope that such a person will not be deemed to have a reasonable cause for not selling his property. He should first be made to put it into good working order, just as I should do if I wanted to sell a motor car.
I should like to give another example in this connection. It is very common for a man to buy three or four shops together, although he wants to use only one. He may be compelled to buy them all because they are offered for sale as one lot. Let us suppose that he is a retailer of a certain commodity. He takes two of the shops and converts them into one big double-fronted shop for his own business, and proposes to let the other two. When he offers those shops on lease he imposes a limiting factor in relation to what can be sold in them, so that they will not compete with him. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee must have known of many such cases.
In such a case the man might find great difficulty in letting those shops, because all the applicants for leaseholds may wish to sell some of the commodities which he is selling. How long is he going to be able to hold on to those two shops without making any contribution in rates in respect of them?
The thought struck me when we were discussing the new Clause that if a person has an empty property in a local authority area he can find all sorts of causes for keeping it empty. Most people can find an ointment for every sore, if there is a sore about, by the use of ingenuity. The potential letting value of the property exists because the local authority is servicing it, and is always prepared to do so. But if a person who owned a property had an overdraft of £5,000 at the bank it would be no good his going to his bank manager and saying, "I am getting no benefit from this property. Will you stop the bank charges?" The manager would merely say, "Not on your life, while your property is empty." Why should a local


authority suffer because, for reasons which may be quite legitimate in the business world but quite unjustified in the social ethics of the community and the century in which we live, a man continues to withhold his property from circulation?
I ask the hon. Member to reconsider the definition of "without reasonable cause". My hon. Friend the Member for Govan mentioned the case of a man who had a shop in respect of which the lease fell in in five years' time. That is a similar example. The property is unoccupied until the lease falls in because the owner would have a job to let it merely for five years. How in the name of fortune will a sheriff be able to judge whether that is a reasonable cause? If a tobacconist with a big double-fronted shop is prepared to let other shops provided only that none of them sells tobacco, will that be judged to be a reasonable cause for his refusing to let the shop? The uncertainty which these words will cause leads me to support the Amendment.

Mr. Hay: The two speeches which we have heard in support of the Amendment have been quite remarkable. The speech of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) was the most unique I have ever heard used in the moving of an Amendment, because every argument he adduced in support of his proposal was, in fact, an argument in favour of retaining the words which he seeks to delete.
Every instance which he and his hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) quoted was a case of genuine folk keeping their houses or properties unlet for perfectly valid reasons which would satisfy any normal and honest person. Faced with any of the situations mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East any sheriff would agree that there was reasonable cause for the property being withheld. It is perfectly reasonable for an owner who wishes to let a number of shop properties adjoining his own to include in his leases restrictive covenants restraining the occupants of the other shops from dealing in certain types of goods. That is why the words should remain in the Clause.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member must not misrepresent the argument which I was putting forward. I said that every

one of the reasons which could come under the heading of "reasonable cause" could be employed as an excuse.

Mr. Hay: If a reason exists and one agrees with it one calls it a reason; if one does not agree with it one calls it an excuse. The schoolboy who stays away from school may be asked what was his excuse for being away, but he may prefer to use the word "reason".
All the examples quoted by the hon. Members opposite are justifiable reasons for withholding property from the market, and in such cases I submit that it would be quite proper for the property owner to go to the sheriff and say that he has a reasonable cause for withholding the property.
If we must have this wretched Clause, these words are essential, because they provide the only escape hatch for the honest-to-goodness property owner. It is not a complete escape hatch, despite what hon. Members opposite have said. The owner has to go to the sheriff at his own expense, pay his lawyer's fees, as the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) has pointed out, and plead his case. The sheriff must then decide whether he has reasonable cause for withholding the property from the letting market.
I should say that that is the very least that we can do for this very oppressed class of persons who often withhold properties from the market not because they wish to make extravagant profits but because the rents at which they could be relet are so absurdly small, in modern conditions, that they would be completely uneconomic and would result in a complete loss. I hope that the Amendment will be resisted.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. D. Johnston: Perhaps it would be convenient if I spoke now in view of the invitation extended by the Joint Under-Secretary and by your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Blackburn, and turn to the Amendment defining "reasonable cause" which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends.
The desire to delete the words "without reasonable cause" by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) shows a similar desire to that conveyed by my Amendment. All hon. Members are conscious that the criticisms offered


during the Second Reading debate by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) were merited, and that these words standing alone could mean all or nothing. What they certainly will mean is a mass of litigation. I suggest that we have either to delete the words or define them. A reason, perhaps among others, for not limiting them is because of the example which is often in our minds of a large mansion house which can neither be sold nor let, however hard the owner may try.
In Scotland, we see such property being stripped of its roof and gradually deteriorating, all in order to avoid the payment of any proportion of rates. If the words "without reasonable cause" were deleted, it would mean that that situation would continue; that after the lapse of time provided for in the Clause, the mansion house would be subject to a proportion of rates, and after that time had lapsed it would be destroyed. The Amendment in my name provides that "reasonable cause" shall mean either:
That the said owner is unable to sell the said lands and heritages at a price not exceeding that determined by the district valuer
or alternatively—and I emphasise that the rights given to the owner are alternative—
that the said owner is unable to let the said lands and heritages at a rent not exceeding the gross annual value".
I suggest with some diffidence that these are proper definitions, because they would make an owner chargeable for a proportion of rates only if he refused either to sell the land or heritages at the price determined, which is a method used in many other cases, or if he refused to let it at a price which is the fair rent determined as the fair rent under this Bill.
I am not necessarily committed to the precise words, and there may be other conditions which may be suggested. But I suggest that it is essential, in order to avoid doubts and litigation, that we should define the words; secondly, that these words which I have suggested are good definitions, and, thirdly, for the reasons which I have given, the proposals of the hon. Member for Govan are not wholly valid in the circumstances which I have set out.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The real reason which underlies both these Amendments is the fact that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like Clause 16. It comes to this, that they are trying to save something out of the abolition of owners' rates. We have to approach both these Amendments on the basis that, under the provisions of this Bill, owners' rates will be abolished.

Mr. Woodburn: It would be a pity if the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded with his argument on the assumption that these Amendments were put down because of a prejudice against landlords. They were put down to meet the conditions outlined by his hon. Friend, namely, that in certain cases houses are deliberately kept from occupancy. That is a serious problem in Scotland and has nothing to do with prejudice against the landlords or any intention to try to retain owners' rates. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will address himself to that problem and not to any reason which he imagines prompted us to put down these Amendments.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I hope that I always address myself to any problem put to me by the right hon. Gentleman. The answer to the point he has made was given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), that local authorities already have the powers to deal with that problem and it is up to them to use those powers.
If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, the object is to use these Amendments as a lever to force landlords to let houses which otherwise they would not let, or to sell houses which otherwise they would not sell—

Mr. Woodburn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman again, but he has missed the point. If these houses are not let, it is quite true that the local authority has power to take them over. If they are not let and there is not some condition of this kind, these houses will cease to make the contribution to the finances of the local authority which ought to have been made. That means that the local authority is being deprived of a contribution to the rates which it ought to have. That is the real point.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I was coming to that point, had the right hon. Gentleman allowed me to proceed. I say, first, that if this is to be used as a lever, then (a) it will not work, and (b) the local authority already has the power. But if these Amendments, as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, have been put down in order to recompense a local authority for rates which it would have received from the owners under the old system and will not get under the new system, I say that the proper way to effect that is to leave the Clause as it stands.
We must return to the basic fact that, under this Bill, owners' rates are abolished. That is a cardinal principle of the Bill. The question then arises whether, in any exceptional circumstances, an owner should make a contribution to the local authority for what I might call owners' rates on an unoccupied house. The issue between us is how large that contribution ought to be and in what circumstance it should be made. I suggest that as the Bill gives this protection to an owner—this umbrella—whereby he does not in future pay owners' rates, it is only if there are very exceptional circumstances that he should make a contribution.
We are starting from the basic principle of abolishing owners' rates and then trying to find a case where an exception should be made and a contribution paid by the owner. The question is whether, if the owner is acting reasonably, he should make that contribution. I suggest that the proper way to approach the matter is to say that if the owner is obtaining the protection of the Bill and acting unreasonably—without reasonable cause—he should make some payment. But if he is acting reasonably, there is no reason why he should not receive the general protection given by Clause 16. After all, it seems to me that, if either of these Amendments is carried, it would cause great hardship in a number of cases.
For example, we might get the case of a married couple living in Glasgow, when the husband is transferred to another part of Scotland. They decide to sell their house, but they have a bond over it, and may have to wait a little while in order to get the price which will enable them to pay off their bond. Surely, that is a reasonable case, and, accordingly, they

would get the protection of this provision in the Bill. If we delete these words, they would have to pay a proportion of the rates, determined at the discretion of the local authority, irrespective of whether they were suffering hardship or were acting reasonably or not.
Again, we may get the case in which there are family reasons. A man may buy a house for his retirement and keep it until he retires. If his retirement is delayed, and it is six months or even longer, and he still keeps it, that is surely a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Why should he, now that owners' rates are being abolished, pay a contribution in respect of that house? He might have to hold it for longer than six months, but it is perfectly reasonable, if he suddenly finds that he has to stay on the job for a further period, that he should keep the house vacant for his eventual retirement.
I was asked a number of questions with which I said I would try to deal at this stage. First, there is the question of the hypothetical grouse moor and the feathered friends thereon. The answer seems to me simply to be that, if the owner of the grouse moor does undergo this extraordinary change and become a conscientious objector to blood sports, and if that is his reason, it is perfectly reasonable that he should not let the moor. The practical answer is that, if he leaves his moor for any length of time and it is not shot over, it would no longer be worth £1,000 a year, but would be worth no more than £5.

Mr. Bence: It would be worth more.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I mean, of course, the shootings. The hon. Member is confusing two things. The shootings are assessed separately from the actual land, and I am talking about the shootings. I said the grouse moor, but I meant the actual shooting rights over it. I am using the colloquial phrase.
The second question I was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley was in regard to a factory whose owner had bought ground for extensions. Certainly, if it be his genuine intention to use that ground for an extension in the for-seeable future, that would, I suggest, be a reasonable cause which would justify him coming within what one hon. Member has called the "escape hatch".
The third point concerned the case of a man who had two shops, one of which became vacant. The question was whether he would be entiled to hold that shop empty until the other one became vacant. I think that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman asked. There again, it is very much a question of the circumstances. If he is intending to develop this property, and if it is a reasonable development, it is reasonable that he should do so. We have to consider each question on the merits and go into the facts. There may be financial questions, family matters and so on, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is a little optimistic in thinking that this Clause will be a lawyers' paradise. He should keep in mind that the decision of the sheriff is final and that there is no question of appeal to the House of Lords or anything of that sort.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) raised the question of the man who owns two shops, one of which he occupies himself as a tobacconist. He will not let the other shop except on a limitation in the lease providing that that shop must not be used for the business of a tobacconist. Undoubtedly, I think that would be reasonable. It is perfectly reasonable for him to say that he will not let it to a competitor. Although it might not go down well with hon. Members opposite, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that a man should not be expected to let a shop next door to his own to a trade competitor.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Willis: We thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Government believed in competition.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: We will leave that to another Bill and another place.
Turning again to the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Paisley, I think I have really dealt with the point. I say that if we define reasonable cause in this way or leave those words out, we shall cause hardship where, I suggest, no contribution should be made. I would hesitate to criticise the drafting, but I would say that—
at a price not exceeding that determined by the district valuer;
is a rather curious phrase to use. If the district valuer fixed £500 as the value,

£1 is a price not exceeding that determined by the district valuer, and, under this Amendment, a man who refuses to sell for £1 would have failed to show reasonable cause. I therefore recommend the Committee to reject the Amendments.

Sir I. Horobin: Would my hon. and learned Friend say whether the mere refusal to let at any price, in view of the history of these properties, would be reasonable or not?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It would depend on family circumstances and financial circumstances. I have come across these cases in practice. We may have the case of property owned by trustees, and it is a common case that they do not have the money in the trust to expend on the property. If part of that property becomes vacant, they would be perfectly reasonable in saying, "We want to sell that part of the property in order to get the money to keep the trust going and to keep up the rest of the property." That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable, and that is why I have said that it is a question of the individual circumstances of the case.

Mr. D. Johnston: The Solicitor-General for Scotland has given a number of confident opinions on what I should have thought were rather difficult questions of law. I would remind him that, in giving these confident opinions, he is advising the Committee, and that he has, as he himself knows, a heavy duty in advising the Committee.
I should have thought that the proper answer to any of these questions was that it depended entirely upon, first, what view the valuation authority takes the words "reasonable cause", and, secondly, on the view of the sheriff on the same phrase, and that, as both valuation authorities and their sheriffs vary in their opinions on what is reasonable and what is not reasonable, it would be impossible to predict the answer to any question postulated either by my hon. Friends or by myself. The whole thing is wholly unpredictable, as was, I think, said in somewhat similar circumstances by the House of Lords in a case which arose on precisely the same words. All I can look forward to in this, as in other Clauses of the Bill, is litigation.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: If the learned Solicitor-General


for Scotland has indicated anything, it is the likelihood that action will be taken only very exceptionally. One of my hon. Friends said that it was not intended by the Government that the Clause should operate, and that it is phrased in such a way that it was very unlikely that it would have very much effect. I think the Solicitor-General for Scotland himself, possibly in trying to reassure some critics on the other side of the Committee, rather overdid the proof when he suggested that this Clause was most unlikely to operate except in the "most exceptional circumstances". He himself used the phrase at least once that only in very exceptional circumstances would it be possible to take action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) went out of his way to offer examples of the sort of excuses—sometimes legitimate, sometimes not—which could be brought by the owners of property even in these circumstances. He tried to illustrate—perhaps with the wrong reaction from the other side of the Committee—in how few cases it would be possible under this Clause as now phrased to take effective action against people leaving property unoccupied and leaving local authorities unable to levy rates upon them. He did so very successfully and if the Solicitor-General for Scotland was trying to destroy my hon. Friend's argument, he certainly failed in that respect, because what the Solicitor-General for Scotland proved was that only in the most extreme and exceptional cases is it likely that action will be taken at all, and only in the most exceptional of such cases will action be likely to succeed.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Johnston) went out of his way in an extravaganza of generosity to give the Solicitor-General for Scotland some of the answers which the Solicitor-General was not himself able to give to questions from this side of the Committee. Some of my hon. Friends and I have put down this other Amendment to the new Clause, not because of any lack of faith in the later Amendment or in the capacity of my hon. and learned Friend, but because we lacked any faith that the Government would have the common sense to accept the Amendment defining the words "reasonable cause". We put it down as a second effort, not

in contradiction of my hon. Friend's Amendment, or to frustrate it, but to support its purpose from a different angle.
We are concerned with two issues. We are concerned with the social problem for dealing with which the Amendments are framed, namely, the very large number—not by any means an exceptionally small number—of properties which are left unoccupied for very long periods indeed, although there are in fact many people who would like to occupy them.
We are also concerned with the cause of their unoccupation, which is the very high financial demands of the owners of these properties upon those who are willing, but unable, because of the high prices and often bad physical conditions, to occupy them. In among all this confusion the local authorities are deprived of the rates which they should be able to levy on the properties and which they would have been able to levy if the owners had maintained them in a reasonable condition in the first place—so that they would attract tenants and, at least, be worth the figure which is asked for them.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley said that, in the first place, the local authorities themselves would have to come to some conclusions about what was meant by the words "without reasonable cause" and in which cases to apply them. That is putting quite an onus on local authorities in the absence of any definition in the Bill. Then the sheriff must interpret the phrase. And that would also put quite an onus on the sheriff. There is also the difficulty that in exactly the same set of circumstances in different areas one might have different local authorities with different views about this problem taking different actions, or no action at all.
It might well be that in Glasgow one would find the local authority taking action and taking decisive action, because Glasgow has a very big problem. Another authority controlled by people with the views of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) would take no action of any kind which might appear to be detrimental to the owners of property. The circumstances could be the same, but local authorities with different political outlooks would take different kinds of action.
There is no way of forcing local authorities to take action. No definition of the words "without reasonable cause" is attempted. The Clause is left permissive and in such a way that there will be a variation of possible action in exactly the same circumstances in different areas. There is no standard of criterion here. Nothing is done to achieve the end which the Secretary of State promised he would try to achieve when we made representations to him in Committee.
It seems to us that it is time that action was taken—and we can discuss it only narrowly within the context of this Bill—to deal with this problem of properties left unoccupied when people—in more reasonable circumstances—would like to occupy them and require them. It seems unreasonable that landlords who have neglected those properties should expect people to pay unreasonable rents or purchase prices for them, or be allowed to leave them unoccupied for long periods.
My hon. Friend the Member for Govan and others of my hon. Friends and I were mainly concerned that there should be a time limit, something definable and defined in the Bill, which would enable and oblige local authorities to take action. It is not enough for the Solicitor-General for Scotland, nor for the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) to say that under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, local authorities have permissive powers to acquire such properties. Local authorities may not want to acquire a property for the very limited purpose of levying a rate upon it, something which they should be allowed to do in any case. Their solution is taking a very big bite to satisfy a very limited appetite. It would be to aggravate rather than to cure to put local authorities in the position of having to take quite drastic action on a scale out of all proportion to the minor aim that they have in view.
I am struck by how differently the landlord is treated in this connection compared with other people with whom the Bill has dealt. In passing I will give the illustration of the case of the agricultural subject to which the Bill refers. If a farmer does not perform all the requirements of agricultural executive committees and is not practising good husbandry, out he goes. The landlords, on the other hand, can leave unoccupied

properties which might be profitable to a tenant, to the local authority and to society in general—and no effective action is taken against them. If one of my crofters, even a tenant, does not cultivate his croft, out he goes; but the landlord can leave property unoccupied for months and possibly years—avoiding rates—and the local authority has no effective way of dealing with the situation. That is still the sum total effect of the new Clause. We agreed to the Clause on Second Reading hoping that the Government might accept some Amendments to it later. We are still hoping, without expecting, that they will have the wisdom to do that.
We have done much in this Bill to create a privileged class of rate-free people—the landlords. In spite of what the hon. Member for Oldham, East said—that was a leakage into the Scottish debate of an English contribution which certainly did not fit into the context of a Scottish rating discussion—it is absolutely wrong that we should give further privileges to people who need them least and who are obstructing the people who are willing to occupy these properties, if only they are able to do so on reasonable terms.
There is one final criticism of the Joint Under-Secretary. He said that it was quite legitimate for a person engaged in commerce or trade to exclude a trade rival by buying a property and keeping it empty. He does not deny that. He did not set a time limit, nor suggest that such a person was doing anything antisocial, or "in restraint of trade", to use the old phrase. That shows exactly what is in the mind of at least one member of the Government. I can picture Mr. Hugh Fraser or Mr. Clore coming along and buying half Glasgow and leaving it unoccupied to keep out trade rivals. Does the hon. Member approve of that?

Mr. J. N. Browne: What I said was that if he did that sort of thing to please himself, there was absolutely no reason why, under this Clause, he should not pay a contribution towards the rates.

Mr. MacMillan: But there is no reason in the Bill why he should. There is no compulsion upon him to do so and no compulsion on the local authority to make him do so. We have this odd


picture of Mr. Fraser buying half of Glasgow and sterilising every other property and preventing other people from occupying it and preventing the local authority from levying rates; and yet the Joint Under-Secretary sees nothing wrong with that, and believes that it is perfectly good practice. I think that that gives away the whole attitude of the Government on this Clause.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: We have now spent an hour in discussing this Amendment and, if the Bill is to go through the remaining stages tonight, as had been agreed through the usual channels, we shall have to make some progress. I regret very much that the Solicitor-General has adopted a provocative, supercilious attitude towards the Committee. That flippancy might be admitted in Standing Committee, but in the House arguments have to be treated with a little more dignity and a little more respect. He has thrown his opinions about in a legal way like some of the "smart Alec" opinions of some of his colleagues who, on the matters of opinion, can give wonderful judgments in about two minutes. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) pointed out, when a legal officer is addressing the House he is supposed to give legal advice, not to make political cracks.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think that the right hon. Member would agree that when I answered the specific questions of the hon. and learned Member for Paisley and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), I gave what I thought was a perfectly straight answer to each. I thought I did so perfectly courteously and fairly. I feel that the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) is being a little unfair in suggesting that I was supercilious. I certainly did not intend to be.

Mr. Woodburn: My impression was that the hon. and learned Gentleman had prepared a whole lot of very smart cracks without having listened to the arguments at all. There was nothing of the "smart Alec" type of controversy from this side of the Committee, and our attitude did not call for the type of approach made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. That sort of thing could delay the passage of this Bill and prevent it passing, because my hon. Friends are not beyond being

provoked. Like the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), they all have a certain capacity for lifting gauntlets when they are thrown down and for starting shenanigans. The right hon. Member is adept at that, and nearly started it today by his discussion of capital punishment and other things which have nothing to do with this Bill.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) that there might be confusion as two Amendments are being discussed together. I gathered from him and from my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) that in effect we are seeking the same thing. Since I do not think that anyone wants to prevent people who have really serious difficulty in letting a house—difficulty which is beyond their control—from being able to get the protection of the umbrella mentioned by the Solicitor-General, I hope it would meet the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan if we did not vote on his Amendment but on the later Amendment which seeks a specific definition.
I can only regret that the Solicitor-General has not presented a more serious argument and defined this matter more clearly, thus preventing some of the anomalies which might arise. It is rather late in the day, however, and we could spend a lot of time debating the question. We on this side of the Committee want to keep pace with the usual channels about what business we should complete tonight.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) for what he has said about his desire to encourage further progress on this Bill. As I think the Committee is well aware, it is of great importance to the Government, and I assure the Committee that so far as I have anything to do with it I and my hon. Friends will do our utmost to co-operate.

Mr. Rankin: Not only are we on this side of the Committee desirous of helping progress on the Bill but we are also keen to improve it. That is the reason why I moved this Amendment. I think I can say that, as a result of the discussion, we on this side of the Committee are all agreed that the new Clause in the name of the Secretary of State is quite unsatisfactory.
I agreed completely with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) that the issue is whether or not the contentious words, "without reasonable cause" should be deleted or defined. I believe that they should be deleted. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) has admitted the case. He said that the words, "without reasonable cause" provided the escape. That was the case I sought to make. He said that there must be some escape for landlords, and that by retaining those words the Secretary of State was providing it. By supporting retion of those words we should be aiding and abetting in the escape. However, I am glad to know that my right hon. and hon. Friends, who may not completely accept my view and the view of many other hon. Friends that the words should be deleted, do agree that they should be defined, and recognise that as the Clause stands it provides an escape which, in my view, would make it unworkable.
When we are faced with having either half a loaf or perhaps no bread, I think I can announce to the world that we are prepared to take the half loaf and, with the consent of my hon. Friends, I shall not press the Amendment, but will support the one which is in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley and other right hon. and hon. Friends, and hope that it will be pressed to a Division.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): Do I understand from the words of the hon. Member about taking half a loaf that he wishes to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry, Mr. Blackburn, if I was rather ambiguous. Therefore, I now beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out "may" and insert "shall".
I do not think that discussion of this Amendment need take long. I think the Solicitor-General made the case for it in resisting the last Amendment. He sought to show that in the great majority of cases where properties were left unoccupied, be they houses, shops or even

grouse moors, they would be kept unoccupied because of a reasonable cause and no rates would be payable. But he said that in the very exceptional cases where the owner kept the rateable subject unoccupied without reasonable cause he would pay his contribution towards local services. This is all this Amendment seeks to make clear. As the Bill is drafted, that person would presumably not be asked to make any contribution at all, but in the definition given by the Solicitor-General, the person keeping the subject unoccupied and denying the local authority rates which would be paid if it were occupied, would be called upon to make a contribution.
The Solicitor-General said that that man will make his contribution. We therefore seek to correct the slight mistake which he has made in drafting the Clause, and to provide that where the owner keeps his lettable subject unoccupied without reasonable cause, and only in those circumstances, he will be liable to a contribution towards local services. That was the Committee's intention when it gave a Second Reading to the Clause; that was made clear by the Secretary of State, the Joint Under-Secretary of State and, later, the Solicitor-General. We have moved the Amendment in the hope that, in the circumstances, the Government will have no difficulty in accepting it.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has tried to convict me out of my own mouth. I do not know whether he has succeeded. If I said, as I must have done if he quotes me as having said it, that the owner will pay in these cases, I can only explain that I should have said, "the owner will be liable to pay". It is at the discretion of the local authority. That is the position as the Clause stands.
The word "may" has been used instead of the word "shall" for two reasons. First, it was a Sorn Committee recommendation that the payment should be at the discretion of the local authority; the authority should decide whether or not the payment should be made. Secondly, as I stressed before, the main purpose of the Clause is to give some protection to the revenues of the local authorities, in view of the loss of owners' rates on unoccupied property. As the


authority is the loser, we can leave it to its common sense to take the necessary steps to collect the money.
Further, the amount to be charged is discretionary. This point will arise later, and I shall not trespass on subsequent Amendments. Authorities have a discretion in the amount they charge, and if they have such a discretion it is difficult logically to compel them to charge it. If they have a discretion to charge anything up to 25 per cent., they can say, "We will charge only 1 per cent.". The word "shall" would in effect be useless here. For those reasons I think that "may" is adequate and is the right word to use, and I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. McInnes: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman overlooks the fact that this question of whether the matter is permissive and mandatory is only in relation to the initial action being taken. What follows that is a matter for the sheriff and the local authority.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The local authority has to initiate action. First, it must be satisfied, and then it may levy the rate. Levying is what it may or may not do; that is the discretionary power. After the authority has satisfied itself, the rest is optional

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is there any recommendation in the Sorn Committee Report for a 25 per cent. limit? Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman impose that specific limit in favour of the landlord in relation to the words "may" and "shall"? Is there any mention in the Sorn Committee Report of 25 per cent. in relation to "may" or "shall"?

The Temporary Chairman: I do not think that occurs on this Amendment, which is whether to insert "shall" or "may".

Mr. MacMillan: I never wish to get out of order. We are suggesting here that the local authority may, or, if the Amendment is accepted, shall impose a sum, with a limit of 25 per cent. I am asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman how he justifies the 25 per cent. in relation to the words "may" or "shall".

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Sorn Committee recommended a discretion but did not recommend any upper limit, but it was felt that as the owner of the unoccupied property benefits only to a minor extent from local services, even though we cannot put these services into compartments, some upper limit should be imposed. I think that that matter arises on a later Amendment.

Mr. MacMillan: In other words, the hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to include this specific provision in favour of the landlord but is not prepared to include anything which will help the local authority. That is all I wanted to know.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Solicitor-General has made it quite clear that the first thing the local authority has to do is to satisfy itself that the owner of this property is behaving in an unsocial manner. Having decided that he is guilty of a serious social offence, the authority, it is suggested, may decide to impose no penalty and not to ask him to make any contribution towards local services.
I explained to the hon. and learned Gentleman in Standing Committee that one of my constituents, who is not well off, has a garage which used to house a car. In recent years, with the cost of practically everything rising, he has had to dispose of his car, and the garage is unoccupied. This constituent still has to pay rates on the garage, and the local authority has no discretion to excuse his rates.

Mr. MacMillan: He pays all the rates.

Mr. Fraser: If in this case the House and the Committee have reached the view that the local authority should be given the discretion to decide whether the owner is keeping the property unoccupied without reasonable excuse, surely the House and the Committee presuppose that such a person will then be called upon to make his contribution towards the local services.
I cannot accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply as satisfactory. The speech which he made in resisting the previous Amendment, the speech made by the Secretary of State in commending the Clause to the Committee, and the


speech made by the Joint Under-Secretary in reply to the discussion on the Second Reading of the Clause, were all speeches which could be construed by any reasonable person only as assuming that the person who was guilty of keeping his property unoccupied without reasonable cause would in every circumstance make his contribution to the local services. If we think that that is what should happen, let us decide that it will happen by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. William Hannan: In advancing his argument, the Solicitor-General said that he was considering the local authority; by the use of the word "may", the local authority could exercise its judgment whether rates should be paid on the unoccupied property. Local authorities have made it clear, however, that they are not concerned only with the loss of income from owners' rates. Glasgow at least has made it clear, in its circular to hon. Members representing the city that the corporation had in mind
the loss in rates which they would thereby incur as a result of the abolition of owners'

rates but more particularly were they anxious to secure that housing accommodation should not be left empty unnecessarily long."

This other consideration also applies, not merely the consideration which the Solicitor-General advanced. It should therefore be present in the Government's mind. It is very present in the minds of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. By using the permissive word "may" instead of the mandatory word "shall", the right hon. and learned Gentleman is declining to put teeth into the Clause which the Government have introduced.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: What I meant to say was that from what the hon. Member said, and from what we all know, the local authority obviously has two very good reasons for exercising its powers under the Clause. Because of that, "may" is clearly quite enough, because undoubtedly the local authorities will exercise their powers.

Question put, That "may" stand part of the proposed Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 207, Noes 148.

Division No. 240.]
AYES
[6.21 p.m.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Cunningham, Knox
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Arbuthnot, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Armstrong, C. W.
Dance, J. C. G.
Hay, John


Ashton, H.
Davidson, Viscountess
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Atkins, H. E.
Deedes, W. F.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Baldwin, A. E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Balniel, Lord
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Barter, John
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Duthie, W. S.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Holt, A. F.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hope, Lord John


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hornby, R. P.


Bidgood, J. C.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Horobin, Sir Ian


Bishop, F. P.
Finlay, Graeme
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Body, R. F.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Godber, J. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gough, C. F. H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Gower, H. R.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Bryan, P.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Burden, F. F. A.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Keegan, D.


Campbell, Sir David
Green, A.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Channon, H.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Kerr, H. W.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grimond, J.
Kershaw, J. A.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Kimball, M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Kirk, P. M.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Gurden, Harold
Lambton, Viscount


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Crouch, R. F.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Leavey, J. A.




Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Oakshott, H. D.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrlm, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Osborne, C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Page, R. G.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


McAdden, S. J.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


McKibbin, A. J.
Partridge, E.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Powell, J. Enoch
Vosper, D. F.


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wade, D. W.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Profumo, J. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maddan, Martin
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wall, Major Patrick


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Ramsden, J. E.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Rawlinson, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Redmayne, M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Marples, A. E.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Marshall, Douglas
Remnant, Hon. P.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Mathew, R.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maude, Angus
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Mawby, R. L.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Roper, Sir Harold
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Russell, R. S.
Wood, Hon. R.


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.



Moore, Sir Thomas
Sharples, R. C.



Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Shepherd, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nairn, D. L. S.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Mr. Richard Thompson and 


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Mr. Barber.


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)



NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Healey, Denis
Padley, W. E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss M.
Pearson, A.


Awbery, S. S.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hobson, C. R.
Probert, A. R.


Balfour, A.
Holmes, Horace
Pryde, D. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Randall, H. E.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hoy, J. H.
Rankin, John


Benson, G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Redhead, E. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reeves, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, William


Boardman, H.
Hunter, A. E.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brockway, A. F.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Royle, C.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Clunie, J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Coldrick, W.
Lawson, G. M.
Steele, T.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Cove, W. G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dlokson
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacColl, J. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McGhee, H. G.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Dodds, N. N.
McGovern, J.
Thornton, E.


Donnelly, D. L.
McInnes, J.
Timmons, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McLeavy, Frank
Usborne, H. C.


Fernyhough, E.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Warbey, W. N.


Fienburgh, W.
Mahon, Simon
Weitzman, D.


Finch, H. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Forman, J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Messer, Sir F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Greenwood, Anthony
Monslow, W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Grey, C. F.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mort, D. L.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Moyle, A.
Winterbottom, Richard


Hannan, W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hastings, S.
Oram, A. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.
Zilliacus, K.



Owen, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Dee[...]

6.30 p.m.

Mr. McInnes: I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out from "notice" to "and" in line 6.

The Temporary Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment we discussed the next Amendment, in line 6, to leave out "six" and insert "twelve", and the following one, in the same line, to leave out "six" and insert "three".

Mr. Elliot: I take it, Mr. Blackburn, that when the Question is put it will apply only as far as the word "than"?

The Temporary Chairman: The following Amendment will be saved.

Mr. McInnes: I feel that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will not be too happy about the phraseology of this part of the proposed new Clause, because it indicates that
Where a rating authority are satisfied that the owner of any lands and heritages which have become unoccupied within their area is without reasonable cause allowing those lands and heritages to remain unoccupied they may … levy upon him, in respect of the period commencing on such date as may be specified, in the notice (not being earlier than six months from the date of the notice) …
and so on.
Those words may be construed to mean that the intention is that when the notice is issued, the house must be occupied for a period of not less than six months. I am not sure whether the Solicitor-General for Scotland agrees with that interpretation, but that is how as a layman, have interpreted it. In other words, before the notice is issued by the local authority, the house must be unlet or unoccupied for a period of six months.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think I might clarify that point. There is no period laid down—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Has the Question been proposed?

Mr. McInnes: I am moving the Amendment now, Sir Rhys. I am only giving way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is clarifying a point, I am sorry that I misunderstood the position.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Thank you, Sir Rhys. I thought it might help if I stated my understanding of these words. The Clause says that the local authority can come to a decision at any time. It may decide after six weeks or three months that the house is unoccupied without reasonable cause. Then a period of six months runs from the date when, having decided that, the local authority serves a notice on the owner.

Mr. McInnes: If I understand the Solicitor-General for Scotland correctly, the local authority can take action immediately, but before it serves a notice there is a period of six months in which to serve it?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The local authority has a few weeks in which to find out whether there has been reasonable cause or not, but once the local authority comes to a decision it can serve the notice at once. But then six months elapse before the rates are actually leviable.

Mr. McInnes: Before the rates operate?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes.

Mr. McInnes: So that what this part of the Clause means is that the local authority can take action within a period of a few weeks, and it must serve intimation on the owner, but a period of six months must elapse before there is any question of the rates operating?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: indicated assent.

Mr. McInnes: A house may remain unoccupied for two or three years before the local authority serves a notice. It is conceivable that there may be, in Glasgow, a house unoccupied for two years. The Clause says that the local authority may serve on the owner notice of its intention to levy rates, and a period of six months must elapse before the rates become applicable. But something happens in between that period. In other words, if he feels aggrieved, the owner, on receipt of the intimation from the local authority, has six weeks in which to appeal to the sheriff. Knowing the state of the law in Glasgow, knowing how cluttered up it is—and the same may well apply to Edinburgh and elsewhere—it may take two or three months before the


matter reaches the sheriff. Then, as I understand the position, after the sheriff has made a decision, a further six months must elapse before the rates become operative.
I am trying to get information. I have established that two or three weeks must elapse before the local authority takes action on a house that may be unoccupied for two years. The owner has six weeks in which to appeal. It may take two or three months before that appeal reaches the sheriff, and after the sheriff has given his decision, as I interpret the provision—I hope I am wrong—a further six months elapse before the rates become operative. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have already indicated that I am not happy about the phraseology of the proposed new Clause.
It is all very well to check me at this stage, when the Clause has been clarified by the intervention of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, but as I interpret it—and I do not think any hon. Member can fault my interpretation—in the aggregate, ignoring the fact that the house has already remained unoccupied for two or three years, at least another year will elapse before the question of levying the rates is put into effect. I think that is deliberately destroying the whole purpose of the Bill.
This Clause has been so worded as to enable the Bill to become non-effective. What I am suggesting is that we should delete the period of six months. The Solicitor-General for Scotland indicated that the six months' period relates only to the period after which the local authority may notify the owner. There is nothing in that to prevent the hon. and learned Gentleman from accepting the Amendment.
The matter should be left to the local authorities. The Solicitor-General for Scotland was in favour of freedom and liberty being given to local authorities to determine when action may be taken—"may" instead of "shall", as it were; permissive instead of mandatory power. Here is an opportunity for him to accept the theory which he advanced on the last Amendment. Why should a local authority wait for six months before deciding to take action? Why should six months elapse before the rates are levied?
The Solicitor-General for Scotland must agree that the Clause is somewhat clumsily worded. I suggest that most hon.

Members would never have thought that the six months had any reference to the levying of the rates. But even accepting that, I have shown that a further six months will elapse before all the machinery has operated, so that taking into account the fact that the house has been unoccupied for approximately eighteen months or two years, the whole arrangement provides for a period of about three years to elapse before something definite is done. I therefore hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Rankin: I have much pleasure in seconding, if it be necessary, the Amendment just moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes).
May I also, at this stage, say how warmly I welcome the support which he is now giving to the Amendment which I moved earlier in today's proceedings? It is nice to know that he agrees with me that this new Clause is worded so that it will be largely inoperative. That is the view which I stated at the beginning, and, as we go along, everything which eventuates will lend support to the view which I then enunciated.
I have an Amendment on the Notice Paper proposing to reduce the operative period to three months. The purpose of that Amendment is, of course, to keep our view in harmony with what was stated in Committee; but, obviously, as things have developed, this new Clause turns out to be merely a method whereby this part of this Bill will be made unworkable and become more than ever a landlord's charter. Because my hon. Friend's Amendment strengthens the attitude which I and my hon. Friends sought to display in our Amendment, I propose not to move the Amendment standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, and I shall support whole-heartedly in the Division Lobby the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central.

Mr. Elliot: I understand that discussion on the two Amendments is to take place now.

Hon. Members: Three Amendments.

Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment now.

Mr. Elliot: My Amendment, in line 6, to leave out "six" and insert "twelve", is one to bring harmony to all sides of the Committee. It was suggested that the sheriff would have some difficulty in deciding this matter. We are here concerned with the narrow field over which he operates. We are dealing with a very minor point, as was said by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). We are not dealing with any question as to whether houses should or should not be made available for occupation, for we have agreed that there is power in the existing legislation to make these houses available for occupation. We are here concerned with the very narrow point as to whether a charge should at some stage or another be levied to assist the funds of the local authority.
There would be something to be said for the Amendment now before us if the terms of this proposed new Clause applied only to houses; but, as was pointed out in vigorous language by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), the Clause applies to other properties. Had he not broadened the discussion so much, I should not perhaps have persisted with my Amendment. He introduced the question of grouse moors. This new Clause embraces farm property; it applies to industrial premises of one kind and another. I do not suppose even the hon. and learned Member for Paisley would suggest that he could let a grouse moor at any period of the year. Obviously, there are only certain periods when properties like that become lettable. I suggest that six months is altogether too short.

Mr. Rankin: A full year's rent is charged.

Mr. Elliot: I think the hon. Member must mean a season's rent.
What is more, the sheriff has power to confirm the decision of the authority, and then the time begins to run from the date when the authority made the decision. Obviously, when one is dealing with heritages of all kinds, including house property, farms, factories, and even grouse moors, as was suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, one has to take into consideration other factors altogether. In my view, twelve months would not be an unreasonable period, and

I hope very much that that view will commend itself to the Committee.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: May I suggest that this is an Amendment on which there can be a very sensible compromise, by accepting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), since there is an argument as to whether the period ought to be three, six, or twelve months. I think the Solicitor-General would agree that if one puts in the words "not exceeding six months", one is apt to give an indication thereby that that is the period which should be adopted. If one puts in a period of twelve months, one indicates that that is the period which should be allowed.

Mr. Elliot: It could be nine.

Mr. Woodburn: That is exactly what we are suggesting, that there is no reason to retain any period, be it three, six or nine months, but that the matter should be left to the discretion of the local authority. After all, we have been arguing that the local authority should have this discretion—that it "may" charge, and so on—and suggesting that the local authority will take everything into consideration. If local authorities are to take all these things into consideration, they obviously will take into consideration what is the appropriate period after which to levy rates.
The wisest course would be to drop all this talk of six or nine months and any indication to local authorities that that is what the period should be. The better thing would be to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment, and leave the matter to the good sense of the local authority to decide the period after which rates will be leviable. Local authorities can then make it six months in some cases, three months in others, or twelve months in others, according to the circumstances which are put before them. I would respectfully suggest that the Solicitor-General and Secretary of State should recommend the Committee to accept this Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). In this case, we are trying to balance on the one side the rights and duties of the


property owner—and, after all, he still has some rights—as against the rights of the local authority.
Perhaps I should start by indicating how the timetable works. The house becomes unoccupied at a certain date. The local authority then looks into the matter and decides whether or not it is unreasonable that it should be unoccupied.

Mr. T. Fraser: Surely, the day after a house becomes unoccupied the local authority does not look around to see whether it is being left unoccupied unreasonably. The local authority will look at the property after it has been unoccupied for some considerable time.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I quite agree; I am trying to go too fast and losing time by so doing. I was only giving the sequence, not the interval.
The house becomes unoccupied and then, at some stage—it may be after a matters of weeks or months, depending really very much upon the local authority's sources of knowledge and the like—the authority will come to a decision that the house is being left unoccupied without reasonable cause. Having done that, it will issue a notice, and in the notice it will say that rates will be levied from a certain date. That date is not earlier than six months from the date of the notice.
Let us assume that the owner appeals. It takes a little time—weeks, possibly months—to get an appeal disposed of; but if the owner fails in his appeal, the date in the notice will stand. There will not be another six months from the date of the appeal to the sheriff.
I think we are agreed that the question is now one of whether we should have six months or not, or whether we should have a longer or shorter period.

Mr. Woodburn: Or whether we should leave it to the discretion of the local authority.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes, I agree.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. and learned Gentleman agrees.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I agree that that is the question, or one

of the questions; but I do not agree that that is the answer.
The Clause provides a reasonable compromise between not only the interests of the proprietor and of the local authority, but also between the views which have been expressed in this short debate. It is only fair that when an owner has a notice served upon him he should have a little time—and six months is a reasonable time—in which still to look around, or perhaps even for the first time, to try to sell or let the property. This provision would give him the six months not only in which to cover the time of the appeal, but also to try to sell or let the house, if he thinks fit. I suggest that the Clause is a reasonable compromise between the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) and by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Woodburn: There may be degrees of unreasonableness. Is there any reason why the penalty, if it is to be considered a penalty, should not be equated to the degree of unreasonableness on the part of the person dealing with the property? If it is a bad case, is there any reason why he should be allowed six months? If it is a very good case, is there any reason why he should not have even longer?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It would be extremely difficult for a local authority to decide on degrees of unreasonableness. It has been said today that to decide reasonableness is difficult, but to decide degrees would be an impossible task. Once an owner was over the borderline, he would get everything that was coming to him. If he was on the right side of the line, he would be safe.

Mr. Willis: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that a notice is never served unless the owner has been unreasonable—

Miss Margaret Herbison: That is the whole point.

Mr. Willis: —and unless he has been anti-social. His house must have been standing empty for so long that the local authority considers it unreasonable. Why then give the owner another six months, when the notice is issued on the assumption that he has been unreasonable?

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to "six" in line 6, stand part of the proposed Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 192, Noes 141.

Division No. 241.]
AYES
[6.53 p.m.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Green, A.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Arbuthnot, John
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Armstrong, C. W.
Gurden, Harold
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Ashton, H.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Atkins, H. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Oakshott, H. D.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Barter, John
Hay, John
Osborne, C.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Page, R. G.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Partridge, E.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bidgood, J. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pitman, I. J.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hope, Lord John
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Hornby, R. P.
Powell, J. Enoch


Boothby, Sir Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Horobin, Sir Ian
Protumo, J. D.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Ramsden, J. E.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Rawlinson, Peter


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Redmayne, M.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bryan, P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Burden, F. F. A.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Robertson, Sir David


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Campbell, Sir David
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Roper, Sir Harold


Channon, H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Russell, R. S.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kaberry, D.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Keegan, D.
Sharples, R. C.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Shepherd, William


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kerr, H. W.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kershaw, J. A.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Crouch, R. F.
Kimball, M.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kirk, P. M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Cunningham, Knox
Lambton, Viscount
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Currie, G. B. H.
Leavey, J. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Dance, J. C. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Davidson, Viscountess
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


du Cann, E. D. L.
McAdden, S. J.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
McKibbin, A. J.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Duthie, W. S.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Vosper, D. F.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Wade, D. W.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Wall, Major Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Finlay, Graeme
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Waterhouse, Capt.-Rt. Hon. C.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Marples, A. E.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland S.)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Marshall, Douglas
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Godber, J. B.
Mathew, R.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Gower, H. R.
Maude, Angus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mawby, R. L.




Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Galbraith and Mr. Barber.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blyton, W. R.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Boardman, H.
Clunie, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Coldrick, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brockway, A. F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Balfour, A.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Cove, W. G.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Burke, W. A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Benson, G.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Crossman, R. H. S.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Callaghan, L. J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)




Dodds, N. N.
Lawson, G. M.
Reid, William


Donnelly, D. L.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lindgren, G. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Fienburgh, W.
Logan, D. G.
Royle, C.


Finch, H. J.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fletcher, Eric
MacColl, J. E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Forman, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MoGovern, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McInnes, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Gibson, C. W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Steele, T


Greenwood, Anthony
McLeavy, Frank
Stones, W (Consett)


Grey, C. F.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mahon, Simon
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sylvester, G. O.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hannan, W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Messer, Sir F.
Thornton, E.


Hastings, S.
Mitchison, G. R.
Timmons, J.


Hayman, F. H.
Monslow, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Healey, Denis
Moody, A. S.
Warbey, W. N.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Weitzman, D.


Herbison, Miss M.
Mort, D. L.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Holmes, Horace
Moyle, A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hoy, J. H.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hubbard, T. F.
Oram, A. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, W. J.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Hunter, A. E.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pearson, A.
Winterbottom, Richard


Jeger, George (Goole)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Probert, A. R.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pryde, D. J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Randall, H. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rankin, John



Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Redhead, E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


King, Dr. H. M.
Reeves, J.
Mr. Deer and Mr. Wilkins

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in line 7, after "unoccupied", to insert "a charge of an amount equal to".

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to consider with this Amendment the hon. Member's Amendment in line 11, to leave out "rates" and insert "charge";
In line 20, to leave out "rates are" and insert "any charge is";
In line 21, at the end to add:
(4) A charge under this section shall be leviable and recoverable as if it were a rate and shall be treated as money paid as rates.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Yes, Sir Rhys, the four go together.
Earlier in these proceedings, as the Committee will remember, I urged the case on theoretical grounds against the imposition of a rate upon unoccupied and unused property. I pointed out that historically the rate is levied upon occupation, and that where there is no benefit from the occupation then there is no liability to rate. Therefore, there is a very strong objection in principle to calling this charge a rate. I think much of the objection would be removed if,

instead of calling it a rate, we were to call it a charge.
I think there is something to be said for the levying of a charge for services. Protection of empty property has been mentioned, police protection, the protection afforded by the fire service, and so on. I think it is reasonable to levy a charge for that so long as it is called a charge and does not confuse the issue by being called a rate. That is the reason for these Amendments. They do not alter the principle. I object in principle to rating unoccupied property. I do not like it, and I have all sorts of objections to the Clause, as I have tried to make clear, but my objection would be lessened if the Amendment were to be accepted.
The wording I propose has some precedent. We use in the fourth Amendment the phrase "treated as money paid as rates." It is taken from Clauses 19 and 20 of the Bill, and there is an earlier precedent since it occurs in the Scottish Section, Section 145, of the Local Government Act, 1948. That is the justification for the wording. I hope it will be acceptable to the Committee.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The payments under this Clause are intended to compensate rating authorities in part for


revenues they would receive if the property in question were occupied. Rating authorities must have adequate power to levy and recover those payments. The sums paid under the Clause will require to be treated in the local authorities' accounts as money paid as rates. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) says, there are similar provisions in Clauses 19 and 20 in respect of contributions received from police stations and lighthouses, and also in the 1948 Act. These Amendments, therefore, maintain the necessary powers, and put the charges in their correct perspective, and the Government are prepared to accept them.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McInnes: I beg to move, in line 7, to leave out from the words last inserted to "the" in line 8.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think we can consider together this Amendment and the next following, in the name of the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), in line 7, leave out "twenty-five" and insert "ten".

Mr. McInnes: I am extremely disappointed at the proposal in the Clause that the amount of rate leviable should be only 25 per cent. of the total rate. I want to try to show that what the Clause will do will be to leave the owner of such unoccupied property in a very much better position than he is at present.
Let us take an unoccupied house with the rates chargeable at 8s. 2d. per owner and 12s. 10d. per occupier. Under the law as it stands, if the house has been unoccupied for nine months, the owner would become liable for owner's rates at 8s. 2d. per £ and they would amount to about £16 6s. 8d. He also becomes liable for a proportion of the occupier's rates and that proportion, according to my calculation, would be £17 2s. So under the law as it stands at present the owner of unoccupied property which has been unoccupied for a period not exceeding nine months will be liable for rates to the extent of £33 8s. 8d. If and when this new Clause becomes law, the owner of such property will be liable only for the sum of £10.
This Clause was ostensibly designed to impose, as it were, a penalty on owners because, without reasonable cause, they were keeping property unoccupied and, by so doing, were in essence withholding rates which would have been payable to the local authority by the occupiers if the houses had been occupied. The 25 per cent. proposal is grossly unreasonable. It is unfair. It destroys the whole intent of the Clause.
The more I consider the Clause the more convinced I become that the Government are merely playing ducks and drakes with the Opposition, and that the Secretary of State has not kept faith with the promise he made in the Scottish Grand Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I reiterate what I said. The Secretary of State clearly indicated in the Grand Committee that he would introduce a Clause on the general lines of the Sorn recommendation. Sorn did not recommend 25 per cent. Sorn commended they should be liable for a portion of the rates. We must realise that because the property is deliberately kept unoccupied the local authority is denied rate revenue which would have been payable by the occupier.
Now we face a situation in which the Government are going to encourage the owners of property to keep that property unoccupied. That is the effect of the Clause. The Government are going to encourage it, instead of trying to destroy this problem of unoccupied property in Scotland. They are saying: "Whereas under the present law you will be liable for £33, we are introducing a Bill to discourage you from keeping property unoccupied and henceforth you will have to pay only £10". It is all wrong. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be disposed to accept the Amendment which in effect means that the owner of such property will become entirely responsible for all the rate element in that property.

Mr. J. C. George: When we in Scotland realised that owners' rates would disappear when this Bill became law we were all delighted. I believe that that applied to both sides of the Committee. In the course of the Committee's debates we have heard about houses being kept empty for the purpose of sale and about the need to retain owners' rates in order to penalise those


who act unsocially. We felt that there was not a great deal in these arguments because of the effect of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. We felt that if local authorities believed that landlords were being unreasonable the remedy was in their own hands. They could acquire the property. But if owners' rates are to re-appear in any form at all, we believe that they must re-appear in a strictly limited manner. Therefore, agreeing that something on the lines of the new Clause is necessary, we object to the scale of the proposed levy.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) said that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not keep faith with the promise he made in Standing Committee. Some of my hon. Friends, on the other hand, believe that my right hon. Friend has gone too far. My right hon. Friend said at the Scottish Standing Committee:
One of the main principles of the Bill is to get rid of owners' rates and, in a sense, this is a breach of that principle … there is a case in favour of the proposition that a property owner who has by his own action kept a lettable property unoccupied for a considerable time, should make some contribution towards the cost of the public services such as the police and the fire services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 10th May, 1956; c. 1001.]
My right hon. Friend also said that he would introduce a new Clause on the general lines of the recommendation made in the Sorn Report which said:
We therefore recommend that … the local authority may … levy such proportion of the new single rate as they may see fit …
I come back to the Secretary of State's own proposition that some levy should be made for police and fire services. In answer to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), it was ascertained that the average rate levy in Scotland for fire and police services was 9 per cent. Therefore, we can arrive at a figure which the Secretary of State said is a form of insurance policy, by a clear system of mathematics. Here is a figure which is derived from facts, but the figure of 25 per cent. in the new Clause seems to have come out of the air and is related to nothing at all.
I also noticed in the Secretary of State's speech a desire to widen the scope of this levy. He said in Standing Committee "fire and police services", but in his

opening speech today, after mentioning the fire and police services, he added that local authorities maintained water to unoccupied property and therefore they should also pay for water. But any water which might be required for the fire service would be drawn from a main, which is kept open in any case.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State went still further. I am struck by the progressive enthusiasm of both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend for something which they both accepted with reluctance in the earlier stages of the Bill. My hon. Friend added to the reference to police, fire and water services, and said that the owners must make some contribution to rates. I and some of my hon. Friends maintain that the Secretary of State's promise would be properly honoured by a figure of not more than 10 per cent., which would cover the average cost of police and fire services for an unoccupied property.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Willis: There is a fallacy in the arguments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George). It is that whilst it is true that police and fire services are necessary to maintain the value of a property, it is also necessary to operate every other local government service if that property is to maintain its value. If those services disappear the property loses part of its value. The hon. Member for Pollok knows that as well as anybody.

Mr. George: Over a short period.

Mr. Willis: Over a short or a long period, if these local government services disappear the value of the property disappears.
The crux of the matter—and we have had no reply to it—is that we are dealing here with somebody who is acting unsocially, against the interest of the community, and nobody takes action against him unless he is so acting. That is the essence of the new Clause. Here is a man who purely for reasons of greed is willing to ignore housing needs, however serious they might be, so that he may satisfy his desire for a bigger profit. He is convicted of being unsocial by the very fact of becoming liable under the new Clause. Why should he not have to pay the rates which he is denying to the community? By


keeping the property empty he is preventing the local authority from obtaining rates which it would have received if he had acted as a good citizen. Why should he not pay the lot?

Mr. George: Why do the local authority not buy the property?

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has pointed out what a small amount the landlord will have to pay under the Clause, if he becomes liable to pay rates at all. We are mainly concerned with the problem of slum properties becoming empty and being sold, and with a number of other properties which we want to see occupied.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: The hon. Member said "slum property".

Mr. Willis: No.

Captain Duncan: Yes.

Mr. Willis: No, I spoke of slum property becoming empty and being sold—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): This private debate should stop.

Mr. Willis: I was speaking of slum property and was about to say that people were buying them because of the acute housing shortage. These people may be misguided but it is an urgent need that compels them to do this. Does the Secretary of State think that the new Clause will do anything to stop that practice? Suppose, for example, that I am the owner of old property which might be condemned at any moment by a local authority. It becomes empty. I decide to sell it and I keep it empty. Even on the basis suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central, if I am caught by the local authority, and there is no guarantee that I should be, I shall have to pay £10.
I can keep that property empty for about nine months before this actually happens. Am I not going to take the risk of keeping it a bit longer if I am likely to make a profit of £300 or £400, and pay the £10? In other words, I might make a few hundred pounds simply by paying to the local authority a sum of £10. So I cannot see that this meets the problem which concerns so many of us.

Indeed, if we accepted the Amendment moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of paying £10 in the case quoted by my hon. Friend, the owner would pay only £4, so that the gamble would be even more worth while.

Mr. McInnes: He could buy Premium Bonds with that money.

Mr. Willis: In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman ought to accept the recommendation of the Sorn Committee and at least leave this to the discretion of the local authority.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) pointed out that the owner would be in a better position under this Clause than he is at present. I agree with him—[An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman agrees?"] In many cases I think he is right. He will remember that the intention of the Bill is to eliminate owners' rates, and for the good reasons fully set out in the Sorn Committee Report. I appreciate the certainty with which the hon. Gentleman believes that it is wrong to implement the Sorn Report, so I can understand that he would not agree to the proposals in this Clause, and would not agree with the attitude of the Government in this matter.
I think he will agree, however—though this may be if not cold comfort, only cool comfort—that from his point of view the Bill is better with than without the new Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) made a case for further limitation. I assure him that my progressive enthusiasm, to which he has referred, is an enthusiasm for greater accuracy and fairness in the light of fuller investigation.
What are the facts? The Sorn Committee recommended that the local authority should levy such proportion of the new single rate as it might see fit, and the view of the Government is that the proportion should not exceed 25 per cent. In reaching this decision the Government had to balance two conflicting interests: the view of the local authority that it should be protected from reduction of income by unjustified inaction on the part of the owners, and the view of the owners that under this Bill they now pay no rates when they are receiving income by way of rent and also providing the local


authority with the ratepayer, whereas under this Clause they now risk incurring a charge on property for which they receive no income and for which they provide the local authority with no ratepayer. Both views are irreconcilable, and both views have force. Some charge is clearly justified under certain circumstances. There is a clear case for police and fire. There is a clear case for something for loss to the authority of occupiers' rates. There is some case for public water and there is some case for street lighting.
We feel that it is unwise to fixe a charge on the cost of any particular local service, not so much because this may differ widely with different authorities, but because it is contrary to the principles of taxation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Well, for example, a ratepayer without a family must meet his share of the cost of education, and in fixing anything other than a blanket 25 per cent., that is what would happen. Nevertheless, the rate charged must have some regard to the cost of protection of empty property, and 25 per cent., is fair in all the circumstances. I assure my hon. Friend that 10 per cent. is clearly too low. He has forgotten the loss to the local authority in occupiers' rates. Therefore, with all these points of view in mind, I suggest that the Government in suggesting 25 per cent., have, like Agag, walked delicately, and I recommend the Committee to accept what the Government recommend.

Mr. Woodburn: I want to suggest to the Government a way out of their mental dilemma about what has been called a breach of the principle of owners' rates. We are not anxious that they should be called owners' rates. I suggest that the Secretary of State should introduce an Amendment in another place to ensure that when a place is not let the owner will be presumed to be the occupier, and will then pay occupiers' rates. That would conserve the principle and would eliminate the dilemma in which hon. Gentlemen opposite are placed. In that case the only thing included in the Bill will be occupiers' rates.
My hon. Friends feel rather strongly about this point. If a person is deliberately unsocial and anti-social in keeping a place deliberately empty, and thereby depriving the local authority of rates, that person should be paying the local authority the rates. The local authority should not suffer because that person wants to indulge himself in the luxury of keeping his place empty, and he ought not to have power to deprive the local authority in this way. Therefore, Sir Rhys, with your permission we will register in the Division Lobby our opinion on this matter.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to "twenty-five" in line 7, stand part of the proposed Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 176, Noes 130.

Division No. 242.]
AYES
[7.28 p.m.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gower, H. R.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Arbuthnot, John
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Armstrong, C. W.
Crouch, R. F.
Green, A.


Ashton, H.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Atkins, H. E.
Currie, G. B. H.
Gurden, Harold


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Dance, J. C. G.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, Viscountess
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Barter, John
Deedes, W. F.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hill, Rt. Hon, Charles (Luton)


Bidgood, J. C.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bishop, F. P.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Boothby, Sir Robert
Duthie, W. S.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hope, Lord John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hornby, R. P.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Horobin, Sir Ian


Brooman-White, R. C.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Finlay, Graeme
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Bryan, P.
Fisher, Nigel
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Burden, F. F. A.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Campbell, Sir David
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Channon, H.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)



Godber, J. B.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)




Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Mawby, R. L.
Shepherd, William


Kaberry, D.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Keegan, D.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Spent, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Kerr, H. W.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Kershaw, J. A.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Stoddart-Soott, Col. M.


Kirk, P. M.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lambton, Viscount
Oakshott, H. D.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Leavey, J. A.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim N.)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Osborne, C.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Page, R. G.
Touche, Sir Cordon


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Partridge, E.
Vane, W. M. F.


McAdden, S. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


McKibbin, A. J.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Vosper, D. F.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Wade, D. W.


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Profumo, J. D.
Wall, Major Patrick


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Rawlinson, Peter
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Redmayne, M.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Maddan, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Robertson, Sir David
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marples, A. E.
Roper, Sir Harold



Marshall, Douglas
Russell, R. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mathew, R.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Col. J. H. Harrison and


Maude, Angus
Sharples, R. C.
Mr. Hughes-Young.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hoy, J. H.
Paget, R. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hubbard, T. F.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Balfour, A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, A.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Benson, G.
Hunter, A. E.
Probert, A. R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Proctor, W. T.


Blyton, W. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pryde, D. J.


Boardman, H.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Randall, H. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Rankin, John


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Redhead, E. C.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Reid, William


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Clunie, J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Coldrick, W.
King, Dr. H. M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lawson, G. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Royle, C.


Cove, W. G.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Deer, C.
Logan, D. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steele, T.


Edwards, Robert (Bliston)
MacColl, J. E.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Fernyhough, E.
McGhee, H. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Fienburgh, W.
McGovern, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Finch, H. J.
McInnes, J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Fletcher, Eric
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thornton, E.


Forman, J. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Timmons, J.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gibson, C. W.
Mahon, Simon
Warbey, W. N.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Weitzman, D.


Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianally)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Clenvil (Colne Valley)
Messer, Sir F.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hannan, W.
Monslow, W.
Williams Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hastings, S.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hayman, F. H.
Mort, D. L.
Winterbottom, Richard


Healey, Denis
Moyle, A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Zilliacus, K.


Holmes, Horace
Oswald, T.



Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Owen W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Simmons.

Amendment proposed: In line 9, at end insert:
Reasonable cause" shall mean either—

(a) that the said owner is unable to sell the said lands and heritages at a price not exceeding that determined by the district valuer; or

(b) that the said owner is unable to let the said lands and heritages at a rent not exceeding the gross annual value.—[Mr. D. Johnston.]

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 128, Noes 177.

Division No. 243.]
AYES
[7.36 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hoy, J. H.
Pearson, A.


Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)
Hubbard, T. F.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, A. R.


Balfour, A.
Hunter, A. E.
Proctor, W. T.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hynd, H. (Acorington)
Pryde, D. J.


Benson, G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Randall, H. E.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Jager, George (Goole)
Rankin, John


Blyton, W. R.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Redhead, E. C.


Boardman, H.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Reid, William


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Burke, W. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
King, Dr. H. M.
Royle, C.


Clunie, J.
Lawson, G. M.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Coldrick, W.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lindgren, G. S.
Sorensen, R W.


Cove, W. G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Logan, D. G.
Steele, T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stones, W. (Consett)


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MoGovern, J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Fernyhough, E.
McInnes, J.
Thornton, E.


Fienburgh, W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Timmons, J.


Finch, H. J.
McLeavy, Frank
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fletcher, Eric
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Warbey, W. N.


Forman, J. C.
Mahon, Simon
Weitzman, D.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gibson, C. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wheeldon, W. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Grey, C. F.
Messer, Sir F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Monslow, W.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hamilton, W. W.
Moody, A. S.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hannan, W.
Mort, D. L.
Winterbottom, Richard


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Moyle, A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hastings, S.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker Francis (Swindon)
Zilliacus, K.


Healey, Denis
Oswald, T.



Herbison, Miss M.
Owen, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Holmes and Mr. John Taylor.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Duthie, W. S.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bryan, P.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Burden, F. F. A.
Emmet, Hon Mrs. Evelyn


Arbuthnot, John
Campbell, Sir David
Errington, Sir Eric


Armstrong, C. W.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Finlay, Graeme


Ashton, H.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fisher, Nigel


Atkins, H. E.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Balniel, Lord
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Barter, John
Crouch, R. F.
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gibson-Watt, D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cunningham, Knox
Godber, J. B.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Currie, G. B. H.
Gough, C. F. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Dance, J. C. G.
Gower, H. R.


Bidgood, J. C.
Davidson, Viscountess
Graham, Sir Fergus


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Deedes, W. F.
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Bishop, F. P.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr, R. (Nantwich)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Green, A.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Boyle, Sir Edward
du Cann, E. D. L.
Gurden, Harold


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Dugdale, Rt Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)




Harris, Reader (Heston)
McKibbin, A. J.
Robertson, Sir David


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Heath, Rt Hon. E. R. G.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Roper, Sir Harold


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Russell, R. S.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Macleod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Sharpies, R. C.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Shepherd, William


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Madden, Martin
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)


Hope, Lord John
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hornby, R. P.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Spens, Rt Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Marples, A. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Mathew, R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Maude, Angus
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Mawby, R. L.
Sumner, W. D. M (Orpington)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, H. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Kaberry, D.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Keegan, D.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Vosper, D. F.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wade, D. W.


Kerr, H. W.
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Kershaw, J. A.
Page, R. G.
Wall, Major Patrick


Kimball, M.
Pannell N. A. (Kirkdale)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Kirk, P. M.
Partridge E.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lambton, Viscount
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Leavey, J. A.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Profumo, J. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Raikes, Sir Victor



Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Rawlinson, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, M.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


McAdden, S. J.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Hughes-Young.



Ridsdale, J. E.



Question put and agreed to.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in line 9, at the end to insert:
(2) A rating authority shall, before considering the question of whether the owner of any lands and heritages is allowing these lands and heritages to remain unoccupied without reasonable cause, invite the owner on fourteen days' notice to state in writing the grounds on which he is allowing the lands and heritages to remain unoccupied and shall take the grounds so stated into consideration.
Earlier in the proceedings, the Solicitor-General for Scotland said that a rating authority, if it had in mind the question of serving a notice on the owner of an unoccupied property, would require a period of a few weeks in which to make up its mind whether the owner was unreasonably—the wording of the Clause is "without reasonable cause"—withholding the property from the market. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that a rating authority, in making up its mind, asks the owner why the property is not being sold or let, as the case may be. Some of us cannot understand how a rating authority can decide whether or not an owner has reasonable cause for keeping a property unoccupied unless it has the owner's reasons before it. We think it right that it should ask the owner "Why has your flat, bungalow or house been on the market so long?"
It has been said that an owner has a remedy and can always go to the court. I object to that, and I think many of my hon. Friends do, as it involves the owner in expense which may be unnecessary, because he may have a perfectly good reason which he could explain to the rating authority, if it asked him. There is nothing in the Clause to compel the rating authority to ask the owner for his reasons. The Amendment provides that the rating authority, before deciding that an owner is allowing lands and heritages to remain unoccupied without reasonable cause, shall ask the owner what his reasons are. This seems to be eminently reasonable. It is probably something which is already done. I cannot imagine that many rating authorities will not do this, but we want to be sure that they will.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: While I sympathise with the reasons for the Amendment stated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), there are two grounds which are conclusive against it. First, it is unnecessary. As my hon. Friend indicated, in practice—in normal practice, at any rate—local authorities will go to the owners. If a local authority did not do so, and decided, without


having heard the owner's explanation, that there was no reasonable cause, it would be in an awkward position when the matter came to appeal, for it would have prejudiced its own case.
Secondly, the Amendment might have a result rather opposite to that which is intended. If the owner were unable to produce his grounds within the fourteen days, the local authority might justifiably hold that, the grounds not being submitted, the non-occupation was unreasonable. There are bound to be cases where, for example, legal advice has to be taken or, more frequently, a meeting of trustees has to be called, when fourteen days would be much too short a time for an owner to produce his case.
For those reasons I think that we can leave the matter to the good sense of local authorities, who in practice will be bound to take those steps which my hon. Friend wants them to take, and I therefore advise the Committee against accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I feel that there is no great purpose in further arguing with my hon. and learned Friend, but I do not propose to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In line 11, leave out "rates" and insert "charge".—[Mr. Thornton-Kemsley.]

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in line 12, to leave out "six weeks" and insert "twenty-eight days".
Consideration of this Amendment need not take much time. In subsection (2) of the new Clause it is provided that where an owner of any land or heritages is aggrieved by the decision of the rating authority to levy rates upon him, he may, within six weeks from the date of the notice sent to him, appeal to the sheriff against that decision. The Amendment proposes to reduce the period from six to four weeks, or twenty-eight days.
We have put down this Amendment, because we can recall that quite recently the Government proposed to give certain other people two weeks to appeal to the sheriff, but we succeeded in convincing them that two weeks was too short a period and that it should be twenty-eight days. That was in the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, which

provided that a tenant who had been given notice of a 40 per cent. increase in his rent on the ground that certain repairs to his house had been carried out should be given twenty-eight days within which to appeal to the sheriff.
We thought that if that was an adequate time for the tenant to appeal to the sheriff against such notice increasing his rent by 40 per cent., it should be an adequate period for the persons concerned in this Clause to appeal to the sheriff. We think that twenty-eight days should be long enough. It is not a large point, and I hope that for once the Government can make a concession to the Opposition.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There is not very much between us on this issue, but I feel that in the circumstances six weeks is the better period. There are two reasons. One is, as I have said earlier today, that there is the period of six months before the notice takes effect, and having a period of six weeks to appeal against the notice in no way cuts down the time between the notice and the decision in such a way as to keep the notice from coming into effect at the due date. There is plenty of time with the six weeks' period in which to appeal to deal with the appeal and have it over by the time the six months are up and the notice comes into effect.
The other reason is the same as that which I gave when speaking on the last Amendment. It is that in the cases of trustees of property—and there are many such cases; the trustees may take over the property on the death of the owner or may have held it for a long time—especially during holiday seasons, it is very difficult to get the trustees together in twenty-eight days. Six weeks give a better opportunity for cases like that for people to meet and decide what they are to do, and it in no way prejudices the running of the six months' period.

Mr. T. Fraser: I am sorry that the Solicitor-General has used that argument. He assumed that there will be six months from the issue of the notice to the rates becoming payable, but earlier he was seeking to convince us that the period would not necessarily be six months.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fraser: I am sorry, but I believe that the hon. and learned Member said that there must be six months. Even so, it does not seem to me that that period has anything to do with the period within which an aggrieved person shall have the right to appeal to the sheriff. It is merely a question of giving an aggrieved person a reasonable time in which to make up his mind, with the advice of his solicitor, whether to appeal.
However, it is not a very large question, and I do not want to delay the Committee by arguing it. Although I am not entirely convinced by the Solicitor-General's arguments, I do not even want to go to the trouble of having the Amendment negatived, and accordingly I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain Duncan: I beg to move, in line 15, at the end to insert:
(3) In any case where in pursuance of this section a charge is being levied on the owner of any lands and heritages and such owner is of opinion that such lands and heritages are no longer being allowed to remain unoccupied without reasonable cause he may apply to the sheriff to annul the decision of the rating authority in pursuance of which the charge is being levied as aforesaid and if the sheriff is satisfied that such lands and heritages are no longer being allowed to remain unoccupied without reasonable cause he shall annul such decision as from the end of the year then current and the decision of the sheriff on any application made in pursuance of this subsection shall be final.
We have reached the position where we have "scrambled" the house. The landlord has had his notice and has been to the sheriff who has decided that the landlord should pay up to 25 per cent. of what in fact are his rates, but what is now called a charge. New circumstances arise. It may be a case of trustees who have a buyer who will not be able to fulfil his contract to purchase for another three or four months. It would therefore be thought reasonable, owing to the change of circumstances, that for the remaining period the owner should be allowed to be free of the charge.
It seems to be only complementary to the Clause that there should be words to that effect. It is not a very important proposal, but it does complete the picture. It permits the landlord an appeal back to the sheriff in altered circumstances or where he has other reasons for being allowed to be free of the charges. I hope

that the Government will accept the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Amendment fills a gap in the Clause, because the principle of the Clause is that it is the unreasonable man who should make a payment, and if the man ceases to be unreasonable, he should cease to make it. I can envisage cases where the man has been unreasonable and is paying the charges and then makes a genuine effort to let or sell the house at a reasonable price, but finds that in changed conditions he cannot do it. I think that he should have the right to go back to the sheriff and say that he has mended his ways. There is the further provision that it is only from the end of the current year that he will be allowed a free pardon, as it were. Apart from that, this Amendment would be some kind of incentive to people at least to try to let or sell their houses.

Mr. T. Fraser: On this side of the Committee we at once accept that there may be cases where an owner who has been unreasonable ceases to be unreasonable. When we saw the Amendment on the Order Paper, we thought that it pointed to weaknesses in the Clause, but the Amendment does not seem completely to fill the bill. Where circumstances have changed, and the owner has reason to believe that he would not now be regarded as unreasonably withholding the property from occupation, he should go to the local authority. The local authority might easily agree with him. There does not seem to be any reason at present for the local authority withdrawing the notice which it had previously issued.
As the Clause is drawn, the notice becomes operative not less than six months after the notice, and so long as the property remains unoccupied. It would seem reasonable to provide in the Clause that the local authority should have the power to cancel the notice or withdraw a notice. It would seem better that the owner should go to the local authority when circumstances had changed and that the authority should look at the matter again rather than that the owner should go to the sheriff. That seems a rather high-handed way of dealing with the matter.
8.0 p.m.
We are not against the principle which the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) seeks to estab-


lish, but there seems to be a weakness in the Clause inasmuch as after a notice has been served if the house is unoccupied, and that is no longer due to unreasonableness, the only remedy is to go to the sheriff and have the decision annulled. Could the Clause not be amended so that the owner could go the local authority?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think the local authority could probably do it by administrative action. I should not like to say that definitely offhand, but I think in effect the result would be the same. Formal application would be made to the sheriff and, if the local authority did not object, the sheriff, without having to hear the parties, would automatically rescind the decision.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In line 20, leave out "rates are" and insert "any charge is".—[Mr. Thornton-Kemsley.]

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in line 21, at the end to add:
(4) This section shall not apply in the case of lands and heritages being—

(a) lands and heritages in relation to which a building preservation order under section twenty-seven of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, is in force, or which are included in any list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under section twenty-eight of that Act; or
(b) lands and heritages which are the subject of a preservation order under the Ancient Monuments Acts, 1913 to 1953, or which are included in any list published by the Minister of Works under the said Acts.

I trust that I shall have better luck with this Amendment than with the other Amendment that I moved. I think it will commend itself to the Committee. These buildings are already covered by other legislation. They are covered by the Town and Country Planning Acts, and I think it would be unreasonable to bring them under this Measure as well. Some of them are under special Regulations, and some could only be made fully habitable by the expenditure of considerable sums of money, or a great deal of alteration to their character, which would be inadvisable. Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the Committee.

Mr. D. Johnston: I, for my part, hope that the Amendment will not be accepted. I hope so for two reasons. The first reason is that the Clause can have no effect on buildings comprised in the

Amendment unless they are being unreasonably withheld from occupation. The hypothesis is that those buildings are being unreasonably withheld from occupation.
The second reason arises from my membership of the Committee set up by the Ministry of Works and Secretary of State to look after such buildings as are mentioned in the Amendment. It might weigh with local authorities and possibly with the Historic Buildings Council and those responsible for making up the list—I am not talking about ancient monuments but the more habitable type of building—if those buildings were automatically to be exempted from any proportion of charge which ex-hypothesi is due because of their being unoccupied unreasonably.

Mr. Elliot: Is it not rather difficult to bring that within the mischief of this Clause? It is not in the first instance proved that occupation is unreasonably withheld. That is only someone's opinion. We all know of some local authorities which are very Philistine in their actions. I would have hoped that it would be possible to withdraw such buildings from this Clause altogether. I do not think control should be exercised under this Measure if that can be done through other legislation dealing with these buildings.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I appreciate the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) but I think the benefit of the Amendment outweighs the fears which he has.

Mr. D. Johnston: Before the hon. Gentleman goes further, may I ask whether he has consulted the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland on this matter? I may say that I am a member of that Council.

Mr. Browne: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.

Mr. Johnston: May I answer for the hon. Gentleman? He has not consulted the Council.

Mr. Elliot: I have at any rate consulted the Lyon King at Arms, and he has given his counsel.

Mr. Browne: I can now confirm that we have not consulted the Council. This Amendment proposes to exempt from


these provisions any property which is subject to a preservation order under the Planning Acts or the Ancient Monuments Acts, or is included in a list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest under the Planning Acts. A preservation order may restrict the demolition, alteration, or extension of any building unless planning consent is obtained, and any building included in a list may not be demolished, altered, or extended unless two months' notice of the intended works is given to the local planning authority. In such an event the planning authority may decide to make a preservation order restricting the proposed works.
In both cases the property is subject to provisions of a restrictive nature, which places it in a special category. It is not unreasonable that the owner of such property—whatever his reasons for keeping it vacant—should be relieved of an additional financial obligation which might make it more difficult for him to maintain it in good preservation. The Government, therefore, are prepared to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In line 21, at end add:
(4) A charge under this section shall be leviable and recoverable as if it were a rate and shall be treated as money paid as rates.—[Mr. Thornton-Kemsley.]
Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(APPORTIONMENT OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE COUNCIL OF A COUNTY UNDER PART V OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1948.)

The Secretary of State shall make regulations prescribing the apportionment between the council of a county and the councils of the districts in the county of any sums received by the council of a county under Part V of the Act of 1948.

The power to make regulations conferred on the Secretary of State by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I hope the Joint Under-Secretary or the Solicitor-General will be as generous to the Opposition as they have been over

the recent Amendments moved by their right hon. and hon. Friends. They have commended to the Committee recently Amendments which they did not think were altogether necessary and which in some cases were not altogether good, but they were moved by their right hon. and hon. Friends and so they advised the Committee to accept them. We did not take up the time of the Committee in showing good reason why the Committee should not accept them, or did so briefly. We did not divide the Committee.
This Clause is somewhat similar to one I moved and which was discussed in Committee upstairs. It has the support of the Committee presided over by Lord Sorn, at least that Committee listened to representations from the District Councils' Association in favour of a proposition that the payments made to a county council under Part V of the Act of 1948, payments in lieu of rates from railways, transport and electricity undertakings, should be apportioned between the county council and district councils within a county.
Lord Sorn's Committee, on whose recommendations the Bill is based, agreed with the District Councils' Association that there should be an apportionment of the moneys received. The Committee did not accept the formula offered by the District Councils' Association but said that if some formula could be arbitrarily laid down or agreed upon, the Committee accepted the principle of apportionment.
In Standing Committee I put forward a new Clause which repeated the formula offered by the District Councils' Association to the Sorn Committee, and the Joint Under-Secretary of State said he could not accept this formula, advancing the same reasons as those given by the Sorn Committee. Nevertheless, he did not resist the principle that there should be an apportionment between the county council and the district councils within the county council. Since he said in Committee that he would be willing to have another look at the matter, I withdrew my new Clause and waited for his new Clause to appear on the Order Paper with the formula which he, with all the assistance he has at his disposal, could work out.
No such new Clause appeared on the Order Paper and I had to get to work myself. In this new Clause, I propose to give the Secretary of State power to


make regulations prescribing the apportionment between the district councils within the area of a county council and the county council itself; and I go on to say that the regulations made by the Secretary of State
shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject
to the negative procedure in the House.
This, I believe, is a reasonable proposition. It may be that the new Clause is faulty in its drafting. I confess that I did the drafting myself, and I am no expert at the job. The Clause has this merit: hon. Members had to read it only once to know what I was trying to do.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be able to make a concession here. He will have a little time to discuss with the authorities concerned what he and his Department regard as a good apportionment between the county council and the district councils. He has not resisted the suggestion that there should be an apportionment. In Committee he seemed to accept the recommendation of the Sorn Committee that it would be a desirable thing to have an apportionment, but he was in some difficulty in working out a formula.
If he accepts the new Clause it will become part of the Act and he will be able to tell the district councils and the county councils that there must be an apportionment. He might then get an agreed apportionment, but in any case he would have been given power by Parliament to determine an apportionment which he would put into the form of regulations and lay before the House. They need not take time in the House, unless hon. Members decide to pray against them. We are not providing for a system which would eat into the Government's time in the House as and when regulations are made. I think this is a reasonable proposition and I hope the hon. Gentleman will make a concession on it.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I find it difficult to resist the opening words of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) or his courteous blandishments. He does it so charmingly. I wish I could do it as well. Indeed, I have some sympathy with the objective underlying the Clause. Unfortunately, I do not believe that it is workable in practice.
The district councils suggested to the Sorn Committee that Part V payments should be distributed to them on the same principle as that on which they receive their share of the Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the 1954 Act, but this proposal was not acceptable to the Sorn Committee, and the Government support the Committee's view.
Since then, the district councils have offered us no alternative suggestion. The Sorn Committee considered sharing on the basis of rateable values, but that would leave nothing for the county councils. It considered sharing on the formula used for payments by the Treasury in lieu of rates in respect of Crown property, and discarded that suggestion because the Part V payments, unlike the payments on Crown property, are not related to the value of the property occupied in each area by the nationalised authorities. Since the Committee stage on 10th May, there have been further opportunities to find a solution. My right hon. Friend has tried, unsuccessfully. No other suggestion has been forthcoming.
The new Clause simply hands the puzzle to the Secretary of State and says, "You solve it".

Mr. T. Fraser: Why not?

Mr. Browne: But can it be solved? Before the Secretary of State accepts an obligation that he shall make regulations, he must know whether he can make regulations, and the answer here is that he cannot. There is no question of the status of the district councils or the views of the county councils. If the Sorn Committee or anyone else had suggested a fair and reasonable method of apportionment, even though the amount involved averages only £70 a year for the district councils and even though the landward ratepayer, on the average, would not benefit, nevertheless my right hon. Friend would no doubt have considered making suitable provision in the Bill.
I am sure the Committee realise that this is not a party matter. With the assurance that this decision is based solely on the practical difficulties and is in no way a reflection on the status of the district councils, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion.

Mr. T. Fraser: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the spirit in which he


has approached this matter, if not for the conclusion which he has reached.
He said that this problem is incapable of solution. He said that we cannot take the rateable value because on that basis the district councils would get all of the payments and the county councils would get none. If we took 50 per cent. of the rateable value, the district councils in each county would get half the money and the county council would get the other half. If we took 25 per cent., the district councils would get 25 per cent. of the money and the county council would get 75 per cent. of it. That does not seem a difficult thing to decide. It may be that the county councils would be unwilling for the district councils to have a share of this money at all, but the Sorn Committee recommended that they should have it and the Joint Under-Secretary has not denied that there is justice in their claim.
Other formulae have been suggested. I do not know whether Colonel Findlay, V.C. of Dunbartonshire, a very active member of the District Councils Association, has written to the hon. Member as he has written to me. Colonel Findlay is in London today on other business; he is engaged elsewhere. When he reads the Report of the debate he will be very disappointed in the Joint Under-Secretary, who has been unable to do anything for the district councils. Colonel Findlay submitted a formula which I considered incorporating in my new Clause. Eventually I thought it would be too risky to try another formula in the new Clause, and for that reason I put down the Clause providing for the formula being decided by regulations.
It must be possible to do this. I have suggested a formula and Colonel Findlay has made other suggestions. It must be possible to do it. I am sorry to say this, but if the hon. Gentleman is unable to accept this Clause I must draw the conclusion, as will the district councils, I think, that the decision to resist it has been taken not because it is impossible to work out formulae, since several have been suggested, but because the Scottish Office do not want to find themselves at variance with the County Councils Association. County councils would feel offended if he accepted this Clause. I rather suspect that it is because of that

that the hon. Gentleman replied as he has done, but I wonder if he could not, even now, change his mind.

Mr. Thomas Steele: Quite clearly, we are unconvinced by the Joint Under-Secretary's speech. He indicated that the district councils themselves had, since the Committee stage, offered no alternative, but surely the hon. Gentleman's speech made it perfectly clear that no alternative would be acceptable. It is because the county councils themselves are not prepared to accept any suggestion that he has had to come to the Box and defend the Secretary of State and the county councils. Perhaps I may say that I am not surprised that the Government should say that this is impossible; if a Labour Government had been in power they would have said that the impossible only takes a little longer, and would have been able to do something about it.
I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has said. The district councils are going to be terribly disappointed by the reply given by the Joint Under-Secretary tonight, and I hope that even at this late stage he can give them some hope at least that the Scottish Office is sympathetic, despite what the county councils' attitude might be.

Mr. McInnes: It is not impossible to find a suitable formula that would enable this proposal to be put into effect. For example, it has been suggested that if each of the district councils got 20 per cent. of the rateable value within their own areas that would, in essence, mean that the county council would get the remaining 80 per cent. Surely the Joint Under-Secretary will not tell us that a formula of that kind is unworkable?
I cannot help feeling that what has actuated his decision tonight is his desire not to offend the county councils, but he must appreciate that the district councils have an unanswerable case. This difficulty about finding a formula seems to me to be a synthetic or imaginary one, and one that could be surmounted if the minds of the Scottish Office were applied to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has suggested one method; other methods have been suggested also, and I hope that though the hon. Gentleman has indicated that he


has made up his mind that it is impossible to find the necessary formula that does not close this question, and that it may be possible, by some other means, to give effect to this demand that the district councils be given an apportionment of the money.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I can assure hon. Members opposite that we did not consider this matter with closed minds. Almost too much time was taken up in trying to find a solution. What I have said is quite genuine and perfectly right—we really cannot find a formula. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) asked, "Why not make it 50–50 or 25–75?" He will remember that the amount which was mentioned, is, on the average, about £70 per district council, and a fair split—and we must have regard to both sides of the question—would be so ridiculously small as to be, in our view, not worth putting into effect. I do appreciate the moderation with which the hon. Gentlemen have made their speeches. I appreciate also how important this is—as a matter of prestige rather than of cash—to the district councils. The words with which I rejected the Clause were chosen with great care and sincerity, but, again, I regret that the Government cannot change their mind.

Mr. T. Fraser: Although the hon. Gentleman has mentioned a figure of £70, he appreciates, of course, that in the large district councils the figure is not one of £70 but very much greater. There are district councils with a rateable value which exceeds that of many large boroughs. We have some district council areas with populations of 70,000, so it means quite a lot to a district council which is seeking for itself some prestige and standing which is at present denied it.
The Joint Under-Secretary will appreciate that this is not a new Clause that I could withdraw. I do not want to trouble the Committee with a decision, but we had better have a negative result. I am not at all pleased with the reception of the new Clause.

Question put and negatived.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 1 OF HOUSE LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1911.)

On and after the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, section one of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911 (which inter alia defines the expression "small dwelling-house" for the purposes of that Act) shall have effect as if for the reference to yearly rent or value there were substituted a reference to gross annual value.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Right hon. and hon. Members may remember that when Clause 31 in the original Bill was deleted in Committee I pointed out that that would involve a little tidying up at a later stage because the definition of the value of the houses dealt with by Section 1 of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, becomes ambiguous so far as this Bill is concerned. The Bill makes it necessary to distinguish between the gross annual value and the net annual and rateable values of a house.
What we have tried to do and we have, I think, succeeded, is to try to get a definition which will as nearly as possible keep the same houses within the 1911 Act and keep the same houses out. It is impossible to get a formula which is absolutely watertight. There are bound to be some houses which will come into the 1911 Act and some which will be out-with it, but I think that we have got as near as possible with this new Clause.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 47 (4) OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1929.)

On and after the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, subsection (4) of section forty-seven of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929 (which confers upon certain occupiers of industrial lands and heritages the right to recover in each year from the owner of such lands and heritages a sum equal to three times the owner's share of the rates payable in respect of such lands and heritages for that year) shall have effect as if for the words "said fifteenth day of May" there were substituted the words "fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven".—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is really a clarifying Clause. The position is that when the new derating provisions came in in 1929 it was provided by Section 47 (4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, that the owner should not get what might be called a fortuitous benefit. Accordingly, there was provision for repayment from the owner to the occupier, in effect, of what he saved in owner's rates. I think that is putting it broadly. But it is doubtful in the Bill as it stands whether that will continue with regard to some of the older leases which are still in existence. This proposed new Clause is merely to make sure that when the Bill takes effect, the occupier will still get his right of relief against the owner and that the owner will not come in for any windfall.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Clause 3.—(SCOTTISH VALUATION ADVISORY COUNCIL.)

8.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, to leave out from "be" to "authorities" in line 24 and insert:
appointed from a panel of persons (other than assessors) nominated by such associations as appear to the Secretary of State to represent valuation".
I think that this Amendment gives effect to a promise to look at the matter again in order to see whether we could meet the wishes of certain hon. Members. It relates to a point on which a number of hon. Members felt very strongly.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "assessors", to insert
or town and county clerks".
I should like to think that the Government will accept this Amendment to the proposed Amendment. After all, it will look very odd if this panel of persons to be nominated by the associations that represent valuation authorities does not

include assessors but includes other officers of local authorities. I should have thought that it would be clear that the Secretary of State does not wish the experts to be included in this panel. Otherwise, why should he exclude assessors? They are the most expert people in the local authorities on matters of valuation, but the right hon. Gentleman does not want them on this panel. He does not want them to serve on this advisory council, but he does provide for other officers of the local authority to be included on the panel.
Of course, we know what officers he has in mind. He has in mind the county clerks. There are some people who take the view that the county clerks should be included in the panel and indeed should sit on the advisory council because, it is said, they have great knowledge of those matters. But surely they are not more knowledgeable than the assessors whom the Secretary of State seeks to exclude.
In any case, we for our part take the view that this should be a council consisting largely of elected persons. We think that the names nominated by the local authority associations should be those of elected persons. We feel that we should invite them to produce a list of elected persons. We want to encourage democracy. We are all the time being scared by assertions about the growth of the managerial State; we are being bombarded by assertions about the growth of bureaucracy. Let us take a small step here to avoid the charge that we are putting the bureaucrats in control of the advisory council.
The Secretary of State, I repeat, has made clear that he does not want the most expert officers, since he will not have the assessors. Let me go a little further, and say that he will not have the town or county clerks either. There is really no need for the county clerks to be included. The Secretary of State will appoint other members than those yielded by the local authority associations. If there are some who, for good reason, he wishes to have included, he can appoint them directly, but let us secure that those people who are yielded by the local authority associations are, in fact, elected members.

Mr. Steele: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There is, I think, a vital distinction between assessors on the one hand and town and county clerks on the other, so far as the advisory council is concerned. One of the functions of the council is to advise the Secretary of State on the assessors' work, and it is obviously inappropriate to have assessors, as it were, coming in to tell somebody what to tell them to do; they would in a way be judges in their own cause. The reason for keeping out assessors is that they are, in one sense, interested parties.

Mr. T. Fraser: I should have thought that in medical, health and education matters, the advisory bodies consist of those very persons concerned.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That may be so; there are those experts. But the position here is that we do not want to have the expert on this panel, because the panel is to tell the expert, up to a point, how he should run the thing generally.
Town and county clerks are in rather a different position. I feel it is a matter for the local authorities themselves to decide. I do not think we should dictate to them by saying that they may not nominate A or B. I can only hope that they will, on the whole, nominate elected representatives, but it is, I think, a matter for them, and it would be wrong for us to try to dictate to them on that matter.

Mr. McInnes: There is absolutely no question of dictation about this. What matters is who is best fitted for the job and is most capable of looking after the interests of the people. For that function, who would be better than the elected representatives?
As I visualise this particular Amendment, this body will be overloaded with officials of all kinds; sanitary inspectors are eligible, town and county clerks are eligible, city chamberlains could be eligible—a whole gamut of local authority officials are eligible to sit upon this Council, and they will do so at the expense of the local elected representatives.
In Committee, we sought to provide that the panel should be composed of democratically elected representatives. We had to give way on one or two points, but now the Government have come forward with this additional provision which

widens the scope enormously. What is wrong in asking that, if assessors are to be debarred, the same ought to apply to county and town clerks, to sanitary inspectors, chamberlains or any other official in what has now become the much broader scope of the Clause? What will happen is that officialdom, as it were, will take control of the Council; if perchance there is an elected representative here and there, he will be over-ruled.
We conceded enough during the earlier stages of this Bill, and we are not disposed to accept this new proposal of the Government.

Mr. Woodburn: I hope that the Solicitor-General will consider this matter a little further. We are somewhat worried that, for instance, when representatives of local authorities come to see Members of Parliament they often turn out to be mostly the town clerks and other officials. Of course, if this were a very onerous job, where the members of this Council would have to sit in continual session, I could understand the need for full-time people to take part in its work. But, if I recollect aright, the cost of running this Council is to be a mere bagatelle, which would indicate that the duties will not be very onerous. It seems to be the sort of thing appropriate for elected representatives. If we are to have only the officials, it will look very much like inviting butchers to take charge of a vegetarian conference.
The people who are the victims of valuation, whether industry or the private householder, should have reasonable representation. It should not be a matter merely for the professional people who are interested in the local authority rates. Rather should it be on the basis of a commission supervising Income Tax and Inland Revenue, to which public interest would be attached. Public interest, apart from the mere local authority interest, ought to have a balanced representation on a body of this kind which will be advising the Secretary of State.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will assure us that this Advisory Council will not be simply a body of people who are dependent upon the Secretary of State for approval, and who will play up to him, and that the Council will have some independence. If I were Secretary of State I should want a Council which could give me advice


and which was not coloured by the interests of its job and the interests of possible favours to come. Some independence must be infused into the Council. If it is not to be comprised completely of elected representatives, there should be some restriction on the number of town clerks, county clerks and people of that kind.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I certainly appreciate the force of the arguments put forward by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and his hon. Friends. We know of the trouble of the overloading of committees with full-time officials. It can be said for the Clause that as a result of my right hon. Friend's proposed Amendment, there will be at least a panel from which my right hon. Friend can choose. That is a step in the right direction. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will consider the points which have been made. Hon. Members on this side of the House also are aware of the difficulties, which certainly will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friend when the time comes to make the choice.
The only way in which we could cure the difficulty would be by dictating to the local authorities, and we should have to go even further than the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has mentioned the city chamberlains, the county treasurers etc., and it would be necessary to include words such as "all full-time officials". I prefer to leave the matter as it is.

Mr. Woodburn: From my first reading of the Amendment, I imagine that the Secretary of State would be bound to appoint the people from the panel which is nominated. Presumably, every area could nominate its county clerk or town clerk, which would mean that there would be no one other than these people from whom to select. Could the Government not consider, in another place, the possibility of providing that the Secretary of State should have a choice—in other words, that names, and not simply one name, should be submitted? If the submission of one name is a formality, the right hon. Gentleman will have no choice.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My right hon. Friend will, of course, ask for

a panel of names and not simply sufficient names to fill the vacancies. He can always ask for more names, if he is not satisfied with those submitted.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Clause 5.—(VALUATION APPEAL COMMITTEES.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The next Amendment to be called is the one in the name of the Secretary of State, and with it can be discussed the preceding Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), in page 6, line 10 to leave out "or carrying on business".

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 6, line 10, to leave out "carrying on business" and to insert:
engaged in business or employed".
This Amendment fulfils the undertaking given during the Committee stage that in appointing the committee the sheriff should be able to appoint representatives of the broadest possible degree of local opinion. As the Bill stands, only residents and principals in business are eligible for appointment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) moved an Amendment in Committee to include those employed in business. He withdrew his Amendment when he appreciated that some of those employed by local authorities or in trades unions would be excluded.
8.45 p.m.
As a result of this Amendment the local co-operative or bank manager, the local fire officer or trades union organiser, who may not live in the area but who spends his working life in the area, will be eligible for appointment to the Valuation Appeal Committee. The Amendment is in line with the recommendation in paragraph 92 of the Sorn Report that members of the local appeal committees should be responsible local persons, which clearly implies an almost unrestricted choice, and that is what the Amendment gives.

Mr. George Lawson: What we should like is not to broaden but to narrow the scope of the choice by


the sheriff in this matter. There will be for the first time in many years a revaluation of all property. For example, innumerable houses occupied by manual workers will be revalued. The sheriff is to select people to serve on the Valuation Appeal Committee after consultation with persons—not, according to the Bill, consultations with organisations: he is to consult persons. We have to bear in mind that many of those whose homes will be revalued are manual workers and people in the poorer sections of our society, and we also have to bear in mind the kind of circles in which the sheriff is likely to move and the kind of people with whom he is likely to be in touch.
He is not likely to be in touch with ordinary manual working people. As we see it, the arrangements under Clause 5 of the Bill are weighted heavily in favour of the professional and business elements, and what we should like to ensure is not that the sheriff shall be able to make more contacts with those elements, but will make contact with the others. In Lanarkshire, for example, there are many whom the sheriff can bring into the Valuation Appeal Committee without having to seek them from outside the county. There are plenty of working people there, too. What we greatly fear is that the sheriff, given this wider scope, will have less and less contact with ordinary working people and that he will too easily find business men, those who work in the area because their firms employ them there, as well as those who live in the area.
In a matter of this sort the manual workers should be quite heavily represented. We fear not only that they will not be heavily represented but that they may not be represented at all, or, at best, only meagrely. We want some guarantee that the sheriff will go out of his way to find people representative of the manual workers, among others, to look after the interests of the manual workers, as well as those of the business people. We must recognise that as things are arranged in our society the people who are easily seen, the people easily reached, the prominent people, are those prominent in business or professional life, and there are many of them from whom the sheriff can choose some to serve on the appeal committee. But if, in addition to those who live in the area, the sheriff is also empowered to choose those

who work or who have business in the area, the scope for bringing in representative people from the manual working-class of our society will be considerably narrowed. We on this side of the House see no reason at all why the sheriff's scope in this respect should be widened. We think that the Bill is bad, but it will be worse still if it is widened in the fashion proposed by the Amendment.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The Government accept the principle that the members of the committees should represent the broadest possible degree of local opinion. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) is speaking to an Amendment which is really contrary to this principle. The Government consider that it would unnecessarily restrict the sheriff and might appear to give the appeals committees an undue bias in favour of occupiers of one particular class of property, that is dwelling-houses.
One of the merits of the existing appeals committees, which the Sorn Committee wished to retain, is their local knowledge. It is obviously an advantage that the sheriff should be able to draw on as wide a range of local knowledge as possible in selecting members of the new committees. I can assure the hon. Member that "persons" covers consultation with organisations.
I assure him that members of local councils will not be cut out and that the sheriffs will not be unmindful of the recommendation of the Sorn Committee that members of these councils should be included. We believe that the interests of manual workers are best represented by the sheriff having the widest possible choice of local knowledge, and local knowledge does not always entail living in the locality. It could be a case of working in the locality. I hope that the hon. Member will accept that explanation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, to leave out:
annually in the month of June".
The Amendment is consequential upon an Amendment made in the Scottish Standing Committee to provide that members of the local valuation appeal committees should hold office for three years.

Mr. McInnes: I ought to express our appreciation of the Amendment, which meets the desires embodied in an Amendment which we on this side of the House moved in Committee. I am glad that the Government have accepted the view that an annual appointment would be impossible.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 6, line 22, to leave out paragraph (f).
In Committee the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) moved that the Secretary of State rather than the sheriff should approve the scheme prepared by each valuation committee setting out its arrangement for the hearing of appeals. Several speeches were made suggesting that the sheriff should not become involved in such detailed matters. The hon. Member withdrew his Amendment on my promise to reconsider the matter. At the time, I suggested that it might be wisest to omit this paragraph (f). On reflection, we think that that would be the best course. We do not want to create undue formality in the committee's proceedings, and we think that approval of the scheme by either the Secretary of State or the sheriff would be an unnecessary complication.

Mr. Fraser: We on these benches think that it would be wise to leave out paragraph (f), and therefore I advise my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lawson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 31, to leave out from "appointed" to "shall" in line 32.
This seems to us to be another example of the Government falling over backwards in an effort to appear fair. This Clause, which sets up the appeal committees and their structure, wipes out the existing committees. The argument put forward has been not that these committees have not been doing the job well—because it is admitted in the Sorn Committee Report that they have done the job exceedingly well and there is no fault to find with them—but apparently certain other people have said that not only should these committees function in a way that is fair but that they must seem to be fair. So, in this effort to seem to be fair, the Government have destroyed the existing committees. Not only that, but they have

gone to lengths which seem almost farcical to ensure that the valuation authority in this case shall have no officer on the appeal committee. In this case they are debarring the appeal committee from having as its secretary an officer of the valuation authority or the local authority.
It seems that this is a case of taking the effort to appear to be fair so far that the position becomes not only absurd but most unfair to the local authority. After all, it is the local authority which has to pay the bill. The local authority might have an admirable man to do this job. For example, the deputy town clerk might be first-rate for doing this job, but he is expressly debarred in the terms of the Bill from taking on the job. Instead, some outside lawyer will be brought in and given the job, which can only be a part-time one. He will be established in the local authority offices and given all the facilities at the disposal of the valuation authority or the local authority, but it will have no control over him, and it will have nothing to do with him except to pay him.
It seems to me and to my hon. Friends that this would be a small measure to take. It could in no way upset the seeming fairness of the appeal committee. It could not prejudice the committee if on it there was the secretary who was himself an employee of the local authority. Remember, the local authority or the valuation authority has no control whatever over the assessor. The valuation authority cannot influence his decisions. All it does is to appoint and pay him, and thereafter it has nothing to do with him.
Therefore any suggestion that the valuation authority might influence or in some way prejudice the decisions of assessors, or arrive at some biased decision simply because he was an employee of the valuation authority, seems absurd. I suggest, therefore, that the local authority should have at least this tiny say in the matter, and that it should not be exclusively debarred from having one of its employees as secretary of the appeal committee. We do not say that an employee of the local authority should be the secretary; all we say is that he ought not to be expressly barred, as is the case in this Clause.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said that the Government were leaning over backwards to be fair, and I agree with him. In this case, I think that is the right position. The Sorn Committee made their recommendation of sheriff appointed valuation committees, in order, as the hon. Member said, and he used the Committee's own words:
that justice may not only be done, as it is already, but that it may more clearly be seen to be done.
In implementation of this, the Committee recommended, among other things—and this is a point which I must make quite clear—that the clerk should not be employed by a local authority. If he were an officer of the valuation authority or any rating authority and also secretary and, to some extent, adviser of the appeal committee, this would be contrary to the principle of the Bill.
The restriction in the Bill is no reflection on the impartiality of local government officers. It is a necessary corollary to the Sorn principle regarding valuation appeal committees, a principle so admirably expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), who said, in the Scottish Standing Committee:
… valuation appeal committees should have three attributes; first, local knowledge; second, impartiality; and third, the power to manifest their impartiality."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 20th March, 1956, c. 374.]
For these reasons, I would recommend the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. D. Johnston: Having so kindly praised me, will the hon. Gentleman recollect that the Amendment I put down was rejected.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Although what the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has said may well be the case, that the Government are bending over backwards to be fair in this matter, the spine which will be fractured is that of the local authority. That is adding insult to injury.
We have tried to argue that the way in which local authorities are cut out of this Bill is grossly unfair. We feel that a gesture has to be made here and there to clothe this outrageous robbery which bears on local authorities in some decent way. The Joint Under-Secretary has

argued that this would not be a reflection on the local officers concerned, but a breach of the principle which was so well enunciated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston).
Surely the principle is that it has to appear to be fair. That does not mean that any person with local knowledge engaged by the local authority, not necessarily employed by the local authority—there is a substantial difference—should not be associated with the Committee. If there are officers of that standing, surely it is the case that they might contribute well to the appearance of impartiality as well as to the action of impartiality. I think it was a double-edged argument.
The Joint Under-Secretary ought to think about it and be willing to accept the Amendment, not only because he feels that there is truth in our side of the argument, but because we feel that a concession has to be made to local authorities somewhere in the Bill, because they are being asked, in the last analysis, to make all the payment for this system of valuation, while in return they are getting very slender powers. Here we are asking, indeed pleading, that one little item should be left to at least dignify the local authority with some unreasonable connection with the whole system.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, to leave out "the" and insert "any Valuation Appeal".

Mr. Speaker: Would it be convenient for the hon. Member to discuss this Amendment and that immediately following?

Mr. Fraser: The next Amendment, as you suggest, Mr. Speaker, falls to be considered along with this one. The Joint Under-Secretary, in resisting the last Amendment, said that the secretary of the appeal committee must manifestly appear to be impartial. That is the case for this Amendment. As the Clause is drawn at present, the Secretary of the Lanarkshire Committee, to give an example, can appear on behalf of a client before the local appeal committee in the city of Glasgow, or a partner in business with him can do that. That would not, I suggest, be a very proper


thing for either the secretary or his partner to do.
My Amendment proposes that a person who is appointed secretary of a local appeal committee will not, so long as he enjoys that appointment, appear on behalf of a client before any valuation appeal committee, nor will any partner in business with him. I think the Amendment will readily be accepted by the Joint Under-Secretary in view of the words he employed to resist the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson).

Mr. J. C. Forman: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I must confess to having some sympathy with the Amendment. The Sorn Committee, in paragraph 92 of its Report, recommended that the secretary should be a solicitor and should be debarred from practising on valuation cases. As the Clause stands, it does not go as far as this, but it provides that the secretary shall not by himself, or by any partner or assistant, appear before the committee of which he is secretary.
When the Bill was drafted, it was intended to implement the Sorn Committee recommendation, but investigations showed that it would be difficult to find solicitors in a position to act at all in remoter areas. Furthermore, if, for example, a partner in a firm of Glasgow solicitors accepted the post of secretary of, say, the Renfrewshire committee, it did not seem essential to debar his partner or himself from appearing before the appeal committee, in, say, Dunbartonshire, Lanarkshire, or Stirlingshire. We do not consider that that would be improper. We feel that to discourage solicitors in this way from accepting these posts would too dangerously reduce the field of selection. It is for that reason, and that reason only, that we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Lawson: Are we to understand from the Joint Under-Secretary that the only people to be acted against are local authorities, that they alone are suspect or may be thought to be biased? Presumably, simply for his own convenience, a barrister with a vested interest is to be permitted to act in this way. Time after time it emerges that local authorities are

being acted against. If it is fair for a local authority to be treated in this way, surely the hon. Gentleman must go the whole hog and say that what applies to the local authority must apply also to the barrister. If he will not say that, it is clear that there is bias here which must be condemned, and I hope that my hon. Friends will take the matter to a vote.

Mr. T. Fraser: Does not the Joint Under-Secretary appreciate that the secretary of, say, the Lanarkshire committee—I might make a guess who it would be—will go before the Glasgow committee acting on behalf of a client and seek to impress the Glasgow committee by reference to what he knows to have happened in the Lanarkshire committee? Surely he should not be allowed to appear before another committee? Surely he cannot be said to be a man without bias in these matters.

Captain Duncan: I have a great deal of sympathy with the object of the Amendment. Hon. Members may recollect that during the Committee stage I said that I thought the most difficult job the sheriff would have would be to find people to act as secretaries of the committees.

Mr. T. Fraser: They have got them all now.

Captain Duncan: The Bill is not law yet so they cannot have them all now.
It will be a most difficult task to get the necessary men. I do not know the position in Lanarkshire, but there simply are not sufficient solicitors in the outlying districts from whom we could choose if, on appointment, they have to give up their valuation practice. It is because I realise the practical difficulties that, although I am in sympathy with the Amendment, I am forced to support the Government.
I know that the Sorn Report, in paragraph 92, suggested that solicitors who were appointed as secretaries should not deal with valuation cases, but I am forced to the conclusion from my experience in the rural districts that the Government are right in this decision.

Mr. Woodburn: I hope that the Secretary of State will look at this matter again. It is my experience that people tend to specialise. The Under-Secretary suggested that partners in a firm might be


acting in one place and making representations in another. Once when I was travelling by train there was a little bit of a scandal going on about local authorities and I could not help overhearing the conversation of the people in the compartment. One was talking about the "good old days" when a partner in a firm went on the parish council and another firm had a representative on the town council. They did not do anything corrupt but those on the parish council gave the orders to their pals on the town council, and those on the town council gave the orders to their pals on the parish council.
I would say that there is a danger that all the partners in a firm in, say, Lanarkshire, might specialise in this business of being secretaries to Valuation Appeal Committees. From one point of view this might be very expert, but no one would suggest that it would give confidence to the general public if they were all scratching each others' backs and saying, "If you do this for me, I will do that for you". That has been a common practice in some walks of life, as many of us know.
The important consideration is to be clear of all that by making it impossible for such a person to be in the know and to be making representations while in the know to people who know that he is in the know. That would not be satisfactory. The Government have gone out of their way to keep the thing clear of town clerks and county clerks, but if they propose to have a clean sweep they ought to make it a really clean sweep. In a town I know there was a lawyer who acted for the town council. He also acted for clients who were buying stuff from the town council. He was a general Pooh-Bah and did everything in legal matters in the town. Nobody can suggest that such a system is satisfactory, and I do not know that he even saved the cost of a lawyer to either party. He probably charged them both the usual fees, but it gave him a very powerful influence and he was a dominant figure in the area for thirty or forty years.
People of this type exist in the small places, but in this instance there are all sorts of people whose services could be drawn upon. No one will suggest that even in the smallest areas there are not people who could be employed to do this

work. I suggest that the Government should reconsider the matter.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. McInnes: We on this side of the House are beginning to feel somewhat ill with these small doses of sympathy which have been extended in the last two or three minutes, with dollops of hostility at the end. I could not appreciate the intervention of the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). He says that there will be a scarcity of such people to act as secretaries.

Captain Duncan: Suitable people.

Mr. McInnes: A scarcity of suitable people. Does he not recognise that as a result of the Bill twenty such suitable people are already redundant? The large burghs will no longer exist as valuation authorities, and the Secretary of State has powers to make certain combinations of what is left after the large burghs become redundant, combinations of county councils covering a very large area, for valuation purposes.
Not a single hon. Member, not even the Joint Under-Secretary of State, has denied that it is undesirable for the secretary to take on valuation work in this capacity as a solicitor, even in some other area. No one will deny, for example, that if he takes on secretarial work on the Valuation Appeal Committee and he is a solicitor, he can find ample opportunity of taking on other legal work, not necessarily valuation work. We are not denying anybody a living, but there is no scarcity of such individuals. I must ask my hon. Friends to divide if the Government are not disposed to accept the Amendment, because our overtures to the Secretary of State in Committee were treated somewhat sympathetically. We naturally concluded that there would be no difficulty in accepting the Amendments.

Mr. J. N. Browne: By leave of the House, I would say that we should like to accept the Amendments. It is a question, not of the convenience of the persons concerned, but simply of skilled personnel in remoter areas. I assure the House that we have done our very best to ensure whether or not we could insert this provision. We cannot do so, and I must advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6.—(ASCERTAINMENT OF GROSS ANNUAL VALUE, NET ANNUAL VALUE AND RATEABLE VALUE OF LANDS AND HERITAGES.)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 7, line 25, to leave out from "the" to "the" in line 27 and insert:
purpose of making up any valuation roll for the year 1961–62 or any subsequent year".

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, the House might find it convenient to discuss that to Clause 7, in page 10, line 16.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Both Amendments cover the same point. They are both drafting Amendments. The first is to make it clear that the principles of valuation laid down in Clause 6 should apply not only to the main roll, but also to the supplementary roll from 1961–62 onwards. Similarly the second Amendment makes sure that the general principles in Clause 7 for agricultural subjects are applied to the supplementary as well as to the main roll.

Mr. McInnes: I take it that this Amendment is consequential upon the introduction of the new Clause 9 in Committee?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Only in part. The main reason is that the Clause as it stands only really covers the main roll and we must cover the supplementary roll as well.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 32 to 37.
The object and results of this Amendment are to delete from the Bill the definition of dwelling-house. The definition was included with the best intentions, but it was pointed out in Committee that when we have a body of law existing which sets out what a dwelling-house is, and when assessors are familiar with that law, it might lead to difficulties if we tried to redefine it in five or six lines. Because of that criticism, I think it would be wise to go on the existing law, have no statutory definition of dwelling-house, and avoid the undoubted trouble which we would have, as hon. Members pointed out, if this definition were left in.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND HERITAGES AND DWELLING-HOUSES OCCUPIED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 16, leave out from "the" to "the" in line 18 and insert:
purpose of making up any valuation roll for the year 1961–62 or any subsequent year".[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 10, line 37, to leave out from the beginning to "as" in line 38 and insert:
pertinent' has the like meaning".
This is purely consequential on the deleting of the definition of dwelling-house.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 10, line 46, to leave out from "which" to the end of line 3 on page 11 and insert:

(a) is occupied in connection with agricultural lands and heritages; and
(b) is used as the dwelling-house of a person engaged primarily in carrying on or directing agricultural operations on those lands and heritages or employed as an agricultural worker thereon; and
(c) is suitable in character and size for such use in connection with those lands and heritages;.

Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the words proposed to be inserted are in the Bill in almost identical language at the moment, and the only new matter is in paragraph (c). That arises out of considerable discussion we had in Committee when it was suggested, I think rightly, that the owner or occupier of a very large house on a very small farm should not get what I might call an agricultural benefit. We undertook to look at the matter to see if we could get a formula to cover the point. Under existing law there are a number of cases dealing with derating in which the question has arisen as to whether the character and size of the house is suitable for the lands and heritages in connection with which it is occupied, so I think the phraseology should not give any legal difficulty. We have a number of decisions on the matter which should be easy to follow. I think that meets the point of avoiding giving to the rich man in the over-large house with a very small farm benefits to which he is not really entitled.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 11, line 25, to leave out from "be" to the end of line 26 and insert:
the gross annual value thereof less an amount equal to fifty per cent. of such gross annual value".

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment and the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), in line 27, to leave out subsection (7) seem to be interconnected. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Paisley would consent to the two being taken together.

Mr. D. Johnston: I agree, Mr. Speaker.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I agree that the two Amendments hang together. The Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State was put down to meet a point—to a certain extent a good point—made by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) in Committee, but it is clear from the fact that the hon. and learned Member has another Amendment down that our Amendment does not entirely satisfy him.
As subsection (6) stands, the amount which the Secretary of State may vary by order is the net annual value and the rateable value of a croft house. The effect of our Amendment is to provide that the amount which can be so varied is the 50 per cent. deduction from the gross annual value of such a house. In other words, his power is not to vary the rateable value of the house but to vary the deduction. That brings the subsection into line with Clause 6 (7).
It may be suggested that the Amendment is still too wide inasmuch as it might cover an arbitrary method of calculation, but the power must be kept fairly wide because the Secretary of State has to have power to vary deductions when they are expressed in the form of £x or y per cent., whichever is the greater. It is desirable that, just as he has power under Clause 6 (7), the Secretary of State should have power, in the case of crofters' houses, to make an alteration in the deduction. That alteration, of course, is subject to an affirmative Resolution of the House.
If he had no power to vary, as would be the case if the hon. and learned Member's Amendment were accepted, it

would mean that if an alteration were to be made we should need substantive legislation. It seems to me that if the power is given under Clause 6 it should equally be given under Clause 7. I think that hon. Members will appreciate that the power would certainly not be used in an arbitrary fashion, and that it is subject to the confirmation of the House.

Mr. D. Johnston: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for his acceptance of what was the first part of my argument in Committee. The Amendment in the Secretary of State's name does not go the whole way that I desired in Committee, but as it took the major part of a morning in Committee to obtain this small concession, I do not propose to weary the House by trying to obtain the further concession which is embodied in my Amendment, which I do not propose to move. I merely say "Thank you" to the Government for the small concession which they have made after a very long period of consideration.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(DUTIES OF ASSESSORS.)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 13, line 18, at the end to insert:
or
(b) any alteration in the net annual value and rateable value of any lands and heritages which is due to an order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (7) of section six or subsection (7) of section seven of this Act".

Mr. Speaker: I think the following Amendment, in line 26, goes with this Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It covers the same point, because both Amendments are designed to lay a duty on assessors to make appropriate alterations in the valuation roll when the Secretary of State has made such an alteration in the deductions as we have just been discussing.
9.30 p.m.
As the Bill stands, it is not at all clear whether, in the event of an alteration being made in the middle of a quinquennium that would be given effect to by the assessors, and conversely, whether, if the assessor did not give effect to it, the occupier would have a right of appeal.


In order to clarify that, it seemed desirable that we should have both provisions inserted in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 26, at end insert:
(b) on the ground that the net annual value and rateable value of the lands and heritages to which the entry relates have been affected by an order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (7) of section six or subsection (7) of section seven of this Act; or.—(The Solicitor-General for Scotland.)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 31 to 34.
The effect of this Amendment is to delete the requirement that an appeal against a valuation on the ground of material change had to be preceded by notice given before a specified date. This restriction is, I think, unnecessary, and a similar restriction which originally appeared in Clause 15 was deleted in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 14, line 38, to leave out from "value" to end of line 45 and insert:
and, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, includes any alteration in such lands and heritages and any relevant decision of the Lands Valuation Appeal Court or the Valuation Appeal Committee for the valuation area in which the lands and heritages are situated, but does not include a change in the rent of the said or any other lands and heritages or any change in the general level of valuations or in the values of lands and heritages situated in the area of a particular rating authority.
The object of this Amendment is to ensure that a change of rent in itself—and I stress the words "in itself"—independently of any change in value should not be a ground for making a fresh valuation. It would, of course, be inconsistent with the general principle of the Bill—which is that valuation should be on fair rent—if changes in actual rent were reflected in valuation every time they took place. This is so particularly in the case of local authority rents, which may go up. This Amendment is designed to ensure that the assessor does not consider just the rent and automatically increase the valuation if the rent goes up. I think that this is both a harmless and a helpful provision.

Mr. McInnes: Perhaps the Solicitor-General would enlighten me. He rather indicated that a change in actual rent should not, under the Bill, be regarded as a change of material circumstance—or words akin to that. If, for example, in the event of the Government bringing about the abolition of the Rent Restriction Acts, which would upset the whole structure of rents in the country, can he tell us whether that would not be regarded as a material change of circumstance?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: With the leave of the House. The hon. Gentleman will realise, of course, that Clause 9 deals with 1961–62 onwards. Until then the valuations will be frozen. Thereafter, if rents of controlled houses go up, the assessor will not regard that, and would not be entitled to regard that as being, in itself, a ground for altering the valuation. I can give him that assurance.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41.—(REPEALS.)

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is that in page 33, line 19, and this seems to go with the proposed new Schedule.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 33, line 19, to leave out from "shall" to second "of" in line 30 and insert:
be deemed to have taken effect on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-six;

(b) the repeal of the enactments specified in Part II of the said Schedule shall take effect on the passing of this Act;
(c) the repeal of the enactments specified in Part III of the said Schedule shall take effect on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven; and
(d) the repeal of the enactments specified in Part IV".

As you say, Mr. Speaker, this Amendment goes with the proposed new Schedule, and there is an Amendment in page 46, line 26, which proposes to leave out the Seventh Schedule—it is the very last Amendment on the Paper—which, I think, also ties up with this Amendment.
This is an operative Amendment bringing in the new Schedule. The new Schedule looks a rather horrifying document, but it really is not quite as bad as it looks. The reason why the new


Schedule is needed is that I am afraid we were a little too optimistic on this side of the House when we introduced the Bill; the Bill was drafted on the basis that it would become law by 15th May, 1956. As we know, it never looked like it. There is the further reason that the new Clause 9 has also necessitated a number of alterations in what we might call the sequence of repeals. Hon. Members will remember that under that Clause we keep in force certain provisions

Orders of the Day — New Schedule.—(REPEAL OF ENACTMENTS.)

PART I


Enactments repealed as from the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-six


Session and Chapter
Short Title
Extent of Repeal


29 &amp; 30 Vict. c. cclxxiii.
The Glasgow Police Act, 1866.
Section thirty-nine so far as relating to churches or other buildings to which section twenty-one of this Act applies.


37 &amp; 38 Vict. c. 20.
The Rating Exemptions (Scotland) Act, 1874.
The whole Act except as regards burial grounds.


16 &amp; 17 Geo. 5. c. 47.
The Rating (Scotland) Act, 1926.
In section eleven, paragraph (a).


20 &amp; 21 Geo. 5. c. xxxvii.
The Glasgow Corporation Act, 1929.
Section twenty-nine so far as relating to churches or other buildings to which section twenty-one of this Act applies.


3 &amp; 4 Geo. 6. c. iii.
The Aberdeen Corporation (Administration Finance etc.) Order Confirmation Act, 1940.
Section ninety-two of, and the Fifth Schedule to, the Order confirmed by the Act, so far as relating to churches or other buildings to which section twenty-one of this Act applies.


14 Geo. 6. c. xxvii.
The Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1950.
Section forty-three of the Order confirmed by the Act.


14 &amp; 15 Geo. 6. c. xiii.
The Airdrie Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1951.
Section one hundred and two of the Order confirmed by the Act so far as relating to churches or other buildings to which section twenty-one of this Act applies.


2 &amp; 3 Eliz. 2. c. ix.
The Dundee Corporation (Water Transport Finance etc.) Order Confirmation Act, 1954.
Sections one hundred and fifty-four and one hundred and fifty-five of, and the Third and Fourth Schedules to, the Order confirmed by the Act, so far as relating to churches or other buildings to which section twenty-one of this Act applies.

PART II


Enactments repealed on the passing of this Act


Session and Chapter
Short Title
Extent of Repeal


3 Edw. 7. c. 33.
The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903.
Section sixty.


2 &amp; 3 Eliz. 2. c. 13.
The Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954.
In section fourteen, subsection (2).

which otherwise would not be kept in force, and vice versa.

I do not want to go into detail on this matter. There are four minor changes which I do not think affect the matter. I think I would prefer to leave it like that, and then perhaps answer any questions which any hon. Member may wish to ask. As I say, these are the reasons, and this is very much a formal Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

PART III


Enactments repealed on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven


Session and Chapter
Short Title
Extent of Repeal


17 &amp; 18 Vict. c. 91.
The Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854.
Section three; in section six the words from "but shall be entitled" to the words "as compared with the amount of such valuation"; in section seven the words "or district" wherever they occur; in section eight the words "of which ten days' notice shall be given" and the words from "and such courts" to the end of the section; in section nine the words "six days at least before such appeal is heard"; sections fourteen to sixteen.


20 &amp; 21 Vict. c. 58.
The Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1857.
Sections one and two.


42 &amp; 43 Vict. c. 42.
The Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1879.
Sections four and five; in section seven the words from "who are not officers" to "Act".


58 &amp; 59 Vict. c. 41.
The Lands Valuation (scotland) Amendment Act, 1895.
Section five.


58 &amp; 59 Vict. c. 42.
The Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895.
In section six, in subsection (6) the words "so far as payable by occupiers only".


16 &amp; 17 Geo. 5. c. 47.
The Rating (Scotland) Act, 1926.
In section eleven, in paragraph (b) the words "by both owners and occupiers".


16 &amp; 17 Geo. 5. c. 56.
The Rating (Scotland) Act, 1926.
In section eight, paragraph (f).


18 &amp; 19 Geo. 5. c. 44.
The Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928.
In section nine, in paragraph (14) the words "or district".


19 &amp; 20 Geo. 5. c. 25.
The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929.
Section four.


1 Edw. 8. &amp; 1 Geo. 6. c. 28.
The Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937.
In section eighteen, in subsection (2) the words "and payable by owners and occupiers in equal proportions" and the words "on owners and occupiers in equal proportions" in both places where those words occur.


1 Edw. 8 &amp; 1 Geo. 6. c. 37.
The Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937.
In section one hundred and one, subsection (4).


1 Edw. 8 &amp; 1 Geo. 6. c. 48.
The Methylated Spirits (Sale by Retail) (Scotland) Act, 1937.
Section seven.


10 &amp; 11 Geo. 6. c. 43.
The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.
Sections eighty-one and ninety-one; in section one hundred and eighty-one, in subsection (2), in paragraph (a) the words from "and the respective amounts" to the end of the paragraph; in section two hundred and fourteen, in subsection (5) the words from "being a branch" to the end of the subsection; section two hundred and twenty-two; in section two hundred and twenty-three the words from "every rate levied upon owners" to "pound, and"; in section two hundred and twenty-four, subsection (2); in sections two hundred and thirty-nine to two hundred and forty-two the word "occupiers'" where it appears in conjunction with the word "rate" or the word "rates"; in section two hundred and thirty-nine the words "so far as the rates are properly chargeable upon such occupier"; in section two hundred and forty-three, in subsection (1) the words "the occupiers' portion of"; in subsection (2) the word "occupiers'"; in section two hundred and forty-six the words from "and in the case of a town council" to the end of the section.


11 &amp; 12 Geo. 6. c. 26.
The Local Government Act, 1948.
In section twenty-nine the words from "and all sums so received" to the end of the section; in section eighty-five, subsection (2); in section one hundred and one the words from "and all sums so received" to the end of the section; in section one hundred and forty-five, in subsection (4) the words "Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of section eighty-five of this Act", subsection (6).

Session and Chapter
Short Title
Extent of Repeal


11 &amp; 12 Geo. 6. c. 67.
The Gas Act, 1948.
In section seventy-five, subsection (8) except in so far as relating to lands and heritages belonging to or leased by the Gas Council.


12, 13 &amp; 14 Geo. 6. c. 31.
The Water (Scotland) Act, 1949.
In section one, in subsection (2) the words from "shall be payable" to "proportions and"; in subsection (3) the words "and shall be payable by occupiers only"; in section eight, in subsection (1) the words "payable by occupiers only".


12, 13 &amp; 14 Geo. 6. c. 68.
The Representation of the People Act, 1949.
In section five, in subsection (6) the words "owned or", the words "owners or", the words "owning or", and the words "as the case may be" in both places where they occur, in subsection (7) the words "and the expression 'own' shall be construed accordingly"; in section six, in subsection (3) the words from "and where there is more than one assessor" to the end of the subsection; in the Third Schedule, in paragraph (3) of rule 15 the words "for occupiers' rates" and the word "such".


12, 13 &amp; 14 Geo. 6. c. 75.
The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949.
In section thirty-five, in subsection (2) the words "owners' rates or of" and the word "other" where first occurring.


14 Geo. 6. c. 34.
The Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950.
In section one hundred and thirty-eight, in paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) the word "rates"; in the Seventh Schedule, in subparagraph (e) of paragraph 5 the words "the owners' rates for the year and".


15 &amp; 16 Geo. 6. &amp; 1 Eliz. 2. c. 47.
The Rating and Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1952.
In section one, in subsection (1), paragraph (a), and in subsection (2), paragraph (a).


2 &amp; 3 Eliz. 2. c. 13.
The Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954.
In section nine, subsection (3); in section thirteen, subsection (2) so far as relating to subsection (6) of section one hundred and forty-five of the Act of 1948.


2 &amp; 3 Eliz. 2. c. 50.
The Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954.
In section thirty-six, subsections (1) and (2).

PART IV


Enactments repealed on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and sixty-one


Session and Chapter
Short Title
Extent of Repeal


17 &amp; 18 Vict. c. 91.
The Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854.
Sections four, six and eight.


29 &amp; 30 Vict. c. cclxxiii.
The Glasgow Police Act, 1866.
Section forty-seven.


30 &amp; 31 Vict. c. 80.
The Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1867.
Section seven.


58 &amp; 59 Vict. c. 41.
The Lands Valuation (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1895.
The whole Act.


3 Edw. 7. c. 33.
The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903.
Section forty-five.


1 &amp; 2 Geo. 5. c. 49.
The Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911.
In section thirty-one, subsection (6).


1 &amp; 2 Geo. 5. c. 53.
The House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911.
In section seven, subsection (8).


10 &amp; 11 Geo. 5. c. 17.
The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920.
In section twelve, in subsection (9) the words from "but, for the purpose of any enactment" to the end of the subsection.

—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS ANNUAL VALUE.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 34, line 11, column 2, to leave out "7" and insert "8".
The principle that should apply to this table is that as the gross annual value increases, so should the net annual value increase, and at the same time so also should the deduction which is permissible increase. When we look at the Schedule as it is drawn up, we find that it produces an increase in the net annual value as the gross annual value increases, but at a point between £20 and £28 gross annual value it does not produce an increase in the deduction from the gross annual value to produce that increase in the net annual value.
I will use a figure to make my point. We find that for a house which has a gross annual value of £20, the deduction is £7 10s., which is rounded off at something higher, whereas for all those houses with a gross annual value between £21 and £28 the deduction is only £7. That, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree, is quite unfair. It is quite unfair that a person living in a house with a £27 or £28 gross annual value should be allowed a smaller deduction than a person living in a house with a £20 gross annual value.
I am quite sure that if the Minister has done as I asked him to do in Committee, and has looked into this point, he will have been convinced that mathematically at least it is correct, and I should also have thought that from the point of view of justice also it is correct. It does affect a very large number of people, and I trust that the Amendment can be accepted.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is quite right; there is that deficiency or blemish in the Schedule as it stands. I have looked into the matter since he raised it in Committee, and though he does not often persuade me, he has persuaded me on this occasion, and I would advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Third Schedule.—(REDUCTION OF RENTS).

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 35, line 12, to leave out from "than" to "then" in line 13, and insert:
such a lease as is mentioned in the next following paragraph".
This is a purely drafting Amendment, in order to ensure that leases which are excluded from the scope of paragraph 2 of the Schedule by the proviso do not come within the scope of paragraph 1. I do not think I need add anything to what I have said.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 35, line 47, to leave out "to be increased" and insert:
, or may fall, to be varied".
Paragraph 3, as it stands, covers leases which may provide for a progressive rent, that is to say a rent to be increased by steps as the years go on. There are certain cases in which there is provision not merely for an increase but for a possible decrease. This point was raised particularly with regard to mineral leases where the rent can go up one year and down the next.
All we are doing here is to ensure that paragraph 3 covers not only the lease where the step is upwards but the lease where the step may be downwards.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 36, line 5, to leave out from "means" to the end of line 10, and insert:

(a) as applied to any amount related to lands and heritages to which subsection (1) of section twelve of the Rating (Scotland) Act, 1926, or section forty-five of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, applies, a fraction of which the numerator is the owner's share of the rates payable in respect of such lands and heritages for the year in which this Act passed and the denominator is the gross annual value of those lands and heritages for that year; and
(b) as applied to any amount related to any other lands and heritages, a fraction of which the numerator is the number of pence per pound of rateable value payable by way of owner's rates in respect of such lands and heritages for the year in which this Act passed and the denominator is two hundred and forty.

These words look a little horrifying, but they do work out if one takes a piece of paper and does the thing mathematically. The reason for the


Amendment is that the definition of the expression "relevant fraction" does not really fit all the cases. It operates unfairly in the case of derated property. I shall not go into all the details, but I have worked out the figures and it does lead to rather extraordinary results. Also, it cannot be applied to a property for which a separate rateable value is not included in the valuation roll. There are cases where, for instance, farm cottages are entered in the roll with a value but not a rateable value. Sub-paragraph (a) of the Amendment deals with the first of these cases, and sub-paragraph (b) deals with the second. As I say, it is really a drafting Amendment, although, on the face of it, it appears to be rather more.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 36, to leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert:
(b) the rent to be reduced in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Schedule in any year shall be ascertained by taking the rent payable to the landlord by the tenant in respect of that year and adding thereto the amount payable to the landlord by the tenant in respect of owner's rates for the year in which this Act passed.
9.45 p.m.
This also is a drafting Amendment. The sole reason for it is that sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule does not specify clearly the year in which the rent is to be taken for the purposes of the paragraph. The Amendment clarifies the purpose of the paragraph.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 36, line 23, to leave out paragraph 5 and insert:
5.—(1) Where by virtue of any condition contained in a lease to which paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of this Schedule applies the rent payable to the landlord by the tenant would, apart from this paragraph, fall to be reduced in consequence of the passing of this Act such condition shall not have effect.
(2) Where the rent payable under any lease to which paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of this Schedule applies is varied by agreement between the parties made after the commencement of the relevant year or by virtue of arbitration or a decision of any court after such commencement the foregoing provisions of this Schedule (apart from sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 thereof) shall cease to apply in relation to such lease.

I suggest that it would be convenient to take at the same time the Amendment in page 39, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (c).
What we are doing is to leave out sub-paragraph (c) in page 39, line 33, and to bring it forward so that there is no possibility of its conflicting with the provisions of paragraph 6, which deals with the determination of standard rents. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that rents under certain leases are not reduced twice in consequence of the Bill. As it stands, there are certain cases in which it might be argued that the rent should come down twice instead of once. The Amendment will also bring changes in rent as a consequence of a court decision—for example, a farm arbitration or the like—within the scope of the paragraph.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 37, line 36, after "paragraph (a)", to insert:
or paragraph (c) or paragraph (d)".
The reason for the Amendment is to make it clear that when the Bill comes into operation in cases where the recoverable rent of a controlled house includes increases permitted under paragraphs (c) or (d) of Section 2 (1) of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920, those increases will be appropriately abated. At the moment, only paragraph (a) is covered, and the Amendment makes sure that paragraph (c) and (d) deductions, together commonly known as the 1920 Act 40 per cent. deduction, are included also.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 38, line 45, to leave out from "shall" to the end of line 49 and insert:
send by registered post to the owner of the said dwelling-house notice in the prescribed form setting forth the effect of this Schedule on such maximum rent".
This is a matter which was raised by the Association of County Councils. The Association pointed out that as the Schedule stood, something like 7,000 notices would have to be recorded in the Register of Sasines. The Association was perturbed about having to do the work and whether it would be able to recover the cost from the owners, which it was thought would not be easy.
Registration in the Register has as its purpose the giving of notice that a house is subject to the improvement grant provisions. The question whether the rent is x or y is not material for practical purposes. Accordingly, for practical purposes, the method in the Amendment achieves just as good a result as registering in the Register. It is much less expensive and will give the county councils, and, indeed, the town councils, far less work.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 39, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (c).—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 39, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(e) a landholder or a statutory small tenant within the meaning of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931, who is occupying a holding immediately before the commencement of the relevant year, and a crofter within the meaning of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, who is occupying a croft immediately before such commencement, and the statutory successor of any such landholder, statutory small tenant or crofter, shall be deemed to be occupying the holding or croft, as the case may he, under a lease for a period of not more than twenty-one years.
This is a drafting Amendment, The Third Schedule provides for reductions in rent to he made where property is held under a lease. This Amendment is necessary, or, at any rate, desirable, to make certain that small landholders and crofters who do not hold their holdings or crofts under leases are brought within the provisions of the Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 46, line 26, leave out Schedule 7.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

9.50 p.m.

Mr. James Stuart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the House for the very helpful and co-operative attitude it has adopted during the proceedings today. I hope I shall not be out of order if I also express my gratitude to hon. and right hon. Members for their similar attitude when we were in Committee on the Bill. We have got through a great deal of work on the Bill today, and it was of very great importance to the Government that we should. I only hope that in the time

remaining to us tonight we shall be able to get the Third Reading of the Bill.
The Bill has undoubtedly received a great deal of careful attention both in Parliament and outside Parliament, and certainly in the Scottish Grand Committee. If anybody chooses to examine the bound Report of our proceedings in the Standing Committee he will realise it is quite a work. I am not complaining of that in any way, for it is very right and proper that the Bill should have been carefully considered, since although much of the subject matter is very technical, it is of very great importance not only to local authorities throughout Scotland but to every ratepayer in Scotland. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for a number of constructive and helpful suggestions which they have made to improve the Bill. They may have wished, some of them, that the Government had found it possible to accept more Amendments, but, at any rate, during the lengthy proceedings on the Bill, it has been improved.
The Third Reading provides an opportunity to refer to the main changes which have been made in the Bill since its introduction. I shall not revert to the Second Reading period because we know the history leading up to that point pretty well, I think, by now, but we must look to the future and consider what will have to be done if the Bill receives the Royal Assent, as I hope it will before the House rises for the Recess.
There have been two main alterations in the Bill since its introduction. First, the quinquennial revaluation combined with the annual publication of the valuation roll takes the place of the proposal in the Bill originally that revaluation should be spread over a period of five years, one section being settled in each year. This change, as hon. Members who were Members of the Standing Committee will be aware, is in the new Clause 9, which was moved into the Bill in Committee. I think this proposal has two advantages in particular over the original proposal in the Bill. It gives the assessor an opportunity to see the picture as a whole in his valuation area before his valuations are made public. It also avoids the possibility of anomalies arising through the introduction of a revalued section of the roll each year.
The second point is that a new timetable has been introduced for the issue of


notices by the assessor and the lodging and hearing of appeals before the local valuation appeal committee. This was done by amending the Second Schedule. I think that it is generally agreed that this is a change for the better. The volume of appeals in the years of revaluation, that is 1961–62, 1966–67, and so on thereafter quinquennially, may be substantial, and the new timetable, among its other advantages, extends the period during which the valuation appeal committee may sit.
I believe that the Bill, as it has been amended, will result in a fairer and certainly a much more easily understood valuation and rating system in Scotland. In five years' time from the Bill becoming law we should have rateable values which ensure that the occupiers of comparable properties make comparable contributions to local revenues. Anomalies which exist today should be ironed out through the machinery of the Bill. The complications introduced into the relationship of owners and occupiers should disappear, and the true burden of the rates will be apparent to those who impose the burden and those who have to bear it.
Much will have to be done immediately after the Bill receives the Royal Assent. Valuation authorities will have to consider, among other things, the possibilities of combination, the appointment of qualified assessors and adequate staffs and the preparation of administrative schemes. This will necessitate intensive work if the Bill is to come into operation next May, as the Government hope and wish. We are confident that the co-operation of the local authorities, which throughout the consideration of the Bill has been so readily forthcoming, will extend to the necessary work of preparation for bringing the Measure into force.
On the point of combining valuation authorities, I am glad to say that we have heard that a very commendable initiative in discussing this question has already been taken by some local authorities in Scotland. We earnestly hope that this admirable example will be followed in all areas where combination would facilitate the employment of fully-qualified staff. This is especially necessary in areas whore qualified assessors are not now employed.
I should like to stress that the provisions in the Bill dealing with the Exchequer equalisation grant have found support in all quarters, but there has been some suspicion, or "suggestion" would perhaps be the better word, for nobody could be suspicious of the present Government, that, since the Bill was not enacted by 15th May this year, local authorities will not receive the grant on the new and more generous basis provided under the Bill until next year. I should like to set minds at rest, because this is not the case. I emphasise that the date on which the Bill becomes an Act does not affect the provision under which grant calculated on the new formula will be available in Scotland from the financial year which began last month.
I think the House will agree that it is unnecessary for me to recapitulate the arguments as to the main principles of the Bill, which have already been so fully argued and disputed previous to this Third Reading stage. The Government remain firmly of the opinion that the present valuation and rating system in Scotland is outmoded and that the far reaching changes provided for in the Bill are necessary.
The Bill is based on the unanimous report of a committee which included members of all shades of political opinion. I hesitate to repeat the name "Sorn" so I will refer to the Report of that Committee. It studied the matter in detail and provided us with a plan for introducing what the Government believe to be an improved system of valuation and rating. I believe that this Bill constitutes a valuable reform which has been overdue in Scotland for many years. I admit its great importance, and I only hope that it will stand the test of time.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I have to inform the Secretary of State for Scotland that my hon. Friends and myself cannot enthuse, as he nearly did, about reaching the final stages of this Bill. We have done our best to improve the Bill in case it passed into legislation, because we could not assume, with a Government majority, that there was any hope of our preventing it from becoming law, and therefore it was our duty to try to improve it in Committee. We put forward a large number


of well thought out and constructive Amendments, of which only a very small number registered with the Government. We were not sure as to the reason for this obstinacy until the Joint Under-Secretary tonight explained that he was continually leaning over backwards. We gathered that was the reason he was not so forthcoming as we should have liked him to be.
There is one curious result of this Bill which the Secretary of State has perhaps not realised. We have been talking about relative fractions in the last minute or two. A little earlier we were talking about constant factors. Some of my Glasgow colleagues will conclude that I am talking about Mr. Murray MacGregor, It is true that shades of Mr. Murray MacGregor have been with us, although he has not been present, and if there are any orders of merit within his command I am sure that the Secretary of State will be an early recipient of one of his decorations.
We are likely to get rid of another constant factor. I can remember all my lifetime a constant procession of housing factors going on to county councils in all parts of Scotland on behalf of the Tory Party. I say "Tory Party" because, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, the Scottish Tories resent very much the suggestion that they might be called Conservatives—

Mr. John Mackie: I call myself a Conservative.

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman was nearly put out of the party for thinking himself a Conservative. The Scottish Conference protested violently against the suggestion that they should be called Conservatives. They want to be called Unionists. Of course other people have other names for them. This procession of factors who have gone on to town councils have boasted that they have prevented town and county councils from doing their job of developing municipal enterprise because they have boasted that they were keeping down the rates. That was an entirely negative point of view, which has hindered the development of Scottish county and town councils for generations.
I know one town where the streets were in holes, and yet the person responsible was glorified by the Conservatives as

being one of the great custodians of our finances. If someone had broken his neck in one of those holes, he would not have been so enthusiastic about the saving.
If we get rid of this constant factor, it will be a great blessing for local authorities throughout Scotland. A great many men have become members of councils for the purpose of keeping down the rates and who have remained to do something quite different. In the county from which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) came, I remember a farmer who went on to the council to keep down the "extravagances" of Joe Westwood in respect of the money which he was spending on education. The farmer was not very long on the council before he realised that Joe Westwood was a person of sound common sense and good wisdom for the county, and the Conservatives nearly put him off the council for becoming a disciple of Joe Westwood.
I propose to be very brief in what I have to say on Third Reading. We have not seen anything happen during the Committee stage of the Bill which has changed our opinion as voiced on its Second Reading. The Secretary of State has still failed to have regard to the fundamental condition laid down by the Sorn Committee that the system of rating should not be overloaded. The Bill has also failed to deal with derating, although we suggested that. It limits the rating burden to tenants and owner occupiers, and it does not deal in any comprehensive way with the financial problems of the local authorities of Scotland.
We know no more now than we did when the Second Reading took place of the possible tragedy for tenants of which this Bill is but the prelude. There is a suspicion that this is simply the introductory chapter to a new landlords' charter. The Government have insisted on forcing the Bill through in a form which has not the improvement which would have resulted from the deletion of the powers to abolish owners' rates and the power to continue derating. The Bill fails to establish justice as between one citizen and another. It fails to ensure the necessary protection against a future soulless exploitation of tenants by the worst type of landlord.
The Bill, in its Committee stage, had a curious progression. Dr. Bannister in his racing was always credited with having the ability at the last minute to put on a spurt which enabled him to finish just in time. This Bill started as a marathon. It is finishing as a sprint. We have been a little too generous, I think, in the arrangements made through the usual channels to conclude the Bill in the short time available to us this evening. We have one consolation. The Secretary of State started these proceedings in fearful anticipation that they would be the end of him. So, in a way, by proceeding so rapidly with this Bill, in spite of its slow start, we have really saved his life, and we have no fear now that at a future date there will be inscribed on a piece of stone:
Poor Jimmy. His heart was torn by a miserable Bill based on Sorn

10.10 p.m.

Sir Ian Clark Hutchison: I should like to make one or two remarks, before the Bill receives its Third Reading, in the very agreeable atmosphere created by the closing words of the right hon. Member for East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn). On Second Reading—it seems a long time ago to most of us—I said that I was in favour of the Bill, and that is true today, subject to a reservation on one point to which I shall refer in a moment.
I am glad that the Secretary of State stood firm about Clause 5, which deals with the composition and functions of the valuation appeal committees. That is a sound and wise decision. I know most definitely that it is one which appeals to my constituents.
I am also very pleased that during our proceedings Clause 9 was completely redrafted so that in future we shall have a complete revaluation carried out during each quinquennial period and a single new valuation roll brought into operation at the end of every fifth year. On Second Reading I urged that course very strongly. Hon. Members on all sides agree that it is a great improvement to have a complete revaluation every five years. It will certainly avoid in the future those difficulties which have arisen in East Dunbartonshire, West Edinburgh and other places where partial revaluations have

taken place, resulting in most unfortunate effects, with the assessments of a number of householders being frozen at high levels.
That brings me to my last point, the position in relation to Clause 15 under which existing assessments are to be frozen until the new roll, compiled under the Bill, is brought into operation in 1961–62. I would recall to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary what he said on the first day of our proceedings in the Scottish Standing Committee, in c. 42.

Mr. Rankin: Which year?

Sir I. Clark Hutchison: It seems a very long time ago, but it was this year. The date was 23rd February. My hon. Friend said:
The Government have a passion for justice as between one ratepayer and another …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 23rd February, 1956; c. 42.]
Frankly, I do not consider that the arrangements under Clause 15 operate fairly as between different ratepayers. I know that a great deal of thought has been given to this matter by the Government and their advisers, and by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I and other hon. Members have tried to draft suitable Amendments. Unfortunately, they have not proved acceptable. I still feel that it should be possible to provide some sort of appeal for householders who will have frozen, for the next five years, their present assessments, which are much higher than those of householders in comparable houses in the same valuation area.
The very last time we met in the Standing Committee, when this matter was raised, the Solicitor-General for Scotland said:
It really comes to this: could we devise some sort of appeals system, possibly based on a material change of circumstances including a recent change in valuation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 15th May, 1956; c. 1060.]
Most of us would agree that that is what we were aiming at. I admit that later on the Solicitor-General said he was not very hopeful of finding a solution to the problem. However, I am not a defeatist, and, although the Bill will receive a


Third Reading tonight without an Amendment having been made to Clause 15, I hope that some wise and learned person in another place will be able to remedy this blot.
I certainly urge the Secretary of State and the Joint Under-Secretary to do what they can to alter the Clause to provide some right of appeal for householders whose assessments are being frozen at a higher level than those of their neighbours. This is a flaw in a Measure which is otherwise well worthy of support. In wishing the Bill well, I trust that the Government will still endeavour in another place to remedy this defect.

10.14 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The outstanding aspect of the Bill, as it will be regarded by local authorities, particularly those of large burghs, is that the stripping of their powers has left local authorities with practically nothing to do in respect of valuation and rating, but they have certainly a great deal to do in paying for the valuation system. The financial burdens have increased and the powers have diminished. There is no doubt that the party opposite will have to stand before the political bar in Scotland to answer for this sharp attack on local democracy.
It was once said by a former Prime Minister, the late Stanley Baldwin, that the exercise of power without responsibility was the prerogative of the harlot. It would appear in this case that we have responsibility without power. The exercise of responsibility without power is now the burden of the eunuch. It appears that this is certainly the case in regard to this Bill.
I think we can fairly claim that the large burghs in Scotland have been very badly let down by the Secretary of State. On 6th March we asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would consider not imposing the financial burden contained in the Bill on the shoulders of the local authorities. We asked him if he would reconsider his decision, and very quickly several agencies in Scotland acted. For example, on 9th March in the Convention of Royal Burghs there was read out a minute of the Large Burghs Committee. It said that as it appeared that the large burghs were not to be concerned in valuation, they should not be asked to contribute to the cost.
That was on 9th March, three days after the Secretary of State spoke in the Committee. In my own constituency, the corporation, which comprises men of many different political creeds, unanimously agreed to approve the following resolution and to send it to the Secretary of State. The resolution said that representations should be made to the Government that the preparation of valuations for local rating purposes should become the responsibility of the Inland Revenue, and that local authorities should cease to have any financial liability in regard to valuation.
This was sent to the Secretary of State on 23rd March. I think that my burgh acted with alacrity, and the Convention of Royal Burghs went on record three days after the Secretary of State made his solemn declaration in Committee. He said:
If the local authorities express to me views different from those which I have already received from them, I will consider later whether there is anything which can be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 6th March, 1956; c. 184.]
Nothing has been done. We had no opportunity at all today to hear the case put forward, and the result is that with the passage of the Bill we are leaving Scotland in an entirely different position from England. With an immense financial burden placed on the shoulders of local authorities, they have been insulted in almost every Clause of the Bill by having power after power, privilege after privilege taken away from them, and with growing obligations.
I know that hon. Members opposite who have a deep regard for local democracy in Scotland must be shocked to know that they are playing such a dreadful part in the march of history tonight. It is my own feeling that we are bound, some time or other in the near future, with the heart-burning of local authorities, to recognise that we shall have to take further steps for the reform of the valuation system in Scotland. I fear that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be disappointed, if he does live for a hundred years, because this valuation Measure will certainly not last that length of time. We shall have to amend it in the near future if we are to place the position in Scotland on a fair basis.
With the crisis in local government swelling up as the years go on, with the


financial position of local councils becoming more and more difficult, this additional burden will become a great challenge, and we will have to face it some day.
There is another matter which we deeply regret, the power of combination without the knowledge of what the combinations might be. In Committee on 13th March, the Joint Under-Secretary of State, referring to the combinations in Scotland, said that he had
… no reason to hold back any information about this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 13th March, 1956; c. 269.]
We have had no indication in later stages of the Bill what the suggested combinations which might take place in Scotland might be.
It is a fact of valuation gossip that great empire building is going on here and that we shall see in Scotland the merging of many counties. So far from my own constituency seeing its valuation authority moved from its own headquarters to the county capital, it will see it move much further than that. More and more remote will become the valuation system from where it has operated among ordinary people. We understand that the merging will take a very substantial form, and it may well be that Scotland will be divided into four, five or six major regions of valuation instead of the present pattern of counties at present envisaged in the Bill.
It is with all those qualms and doubts, which are not of a partisan nature but of the nature of good government, which is devoid of the partisanship of political philosophy, that it seems to me that hon. Members opposite should be concerned that they should welcome the Third Reading of the Bill and wish to see it on the Statute Book. Speaking for the people I represent, I view with abhorrence the abolition of owners' rates in the present context of Scotland's housing position, which is so substantially different from that of England. I cannot see how it is possible for hon. Members to claim that that provision will help the position in Scotland, and I regard it as complete hypocrisy to claim that it will be an impetus to house building in Scotland.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. D. M. Keegan: I am glad to have this opportunity of speaking on this Bill. I know that it is not customary for English Members to interfere in Scottish business, but I hope that by the time I have finished speaking I can be commended not only for my brevity but for my bravery. The only issue I wish to raise is connected with Clause 1, which in subsection (2) says that—
… any assessor … holding office immediately before the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, … shall cease to hold office on that date.
Subsection (5) of that Clause says that the Secretary of State shall make regulations prescribing the qualifications which assessors in future must have, if they are to be appointed to this particular office, and similar regulations will govern the appointment of deputy assessors.
That means that all those assessors and deputy assessors who presently hold their appointments are, on the passing of the Bill, automatically discharged from those appointments. The Bill does not make clear whether they will be appointed again. That seems to depend on regulations to be made in the future and at the moment, and none of us knows the contents of those regulations. This has caused a good deal of consternation among the officers concerned, who are very anxious to have an assurance from the Secretary of State that not only will their jobs be given a certain amount of consideration in the future, but that they will be given priority in that, after the Bill is passed and the regulations are made, should two persons apply for one job, one of them having held an appointment as assessor previously and one not, if both are qualified under the regulations, the person who held the job previously will get some priority over the other.
I ask the Secretary of State carefully to consider the employment of people who have given very long and faithful service to local government authorities in Scotland. I have been asked to put forward this case on behalf of the National Association of Local Government Officers. The Association's claims are entirely reasonable in this case. I ask the Secretary of State also to give careful consideration when he comes to draft the regulations and to give some recognition


to long service, although the persons concerned have not, in fact, been technically qualified and are not technically qualified in future. I shall be very happy to have from him the assurance that when the regulations are made, very careful thought will be given to those points.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I can quite understand the feeling the Secretary of State has expressed in bidding farewell to this Bill, but I think he should have shown a little more gratitude to the people who have helped him to get the Bill through—I mean his absent friends from the south of England who did not understand the Bill when he introduced it, were not present in the Committee and did not understand it then, and do not yet understand it.
We all know that when the Secretary of State came with his incantation and slogan that this was the Sorn Committee and that was that, the gentleman from the south of England trooped in and decided the fate of Scotland for the next 100 years. The right hon. Gentleman might have expressed a few words of gratitude to those who helped him inflict this Measure on Scotland. I am not forgetting the Northern Ireland people, and I suppose if there had been Members for Malta they also would have helped. The Secretary of State went through the proceedings with all the keenness of a Weary Willie and all the energy of a Tired Tim. The result is very complicated piece of machinery on the Statute Book, the full effects of which will not be felt by the people of Scotland until about 1961, when the right hon. Gentleman will probably be forgotten.
It is a piece of legislation which will inflict heavy burdens on the great majority of working people throughout Scotland at a time when local government will be rendered almost impossible because of the financial policy of this Government. It will be the poor county councillors and town councillors in 1961 who will have to face a barrage of criticism which will be the inevitable result of this legislation coming into operation. They will have to bear the brunt of public criticism which inevitably will come as a result of the implications of this Measure. In future, the democratic rights of local authorities will be taken away and great power placed in

the hands of gentlemen known as the sheriffs.
Burdens will be placed on all sorts of people with very small incomes. This Bill will not help to solve a single one of the complicated problems coming upon us in 1961. We shall have the burden of injustice of this Measure which will have been put on the Statute Book with the co-operation and help of people who have not been here to hear what it is all about.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. D. Johnston: At this stage of a Bill, it is customary for whoever is winding up for the Opposition to try to say something kind about the way in which the Bill has been conducted by Her Majesty's Government and also something kind about the Bill itself.
As to the conduct of the Bill, the only kind thing I feel I can say about Her Majesty's Government is that the Secretary of State says "No" as kindly as anyone. As to the Bill, the only good thing which can be said is that it embodies the new principle of quinquennial valuation for which there has been much agitation in Scotland for many years. The enthusiasm with which I greet that proposition is somewhat tempered by two facts. The first is that I wrote the paper submitted by the Barnton Association to the Sorn Committee some five years ago. Unfortunately, my modesty forbids me commending it too much. Secondly, the quinquennial valuation has resulted in the anomalies which have been so forcefully spoken about by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clarke Hutchison). As a result of the quinquennial valuation those anomalies must continue until 1961–62.
The second plum or good thing about the Bill will be thought to be good by a more limited class. That is the legal profession in Scotland. The method of valuation which has been proposed is to abolish the old method and substitute the method of valuation which depends for its success on the assumption of about six negative hypothesi. How it is to be done I do not quite know, but I do know that everyone who is skilled in valuation to whom I have spoken—and I know a little about the subject myself—has come to the conclusion that in 1961–62 there will be a mass of litigation akin to that which resulted from the industrial derating Act of 1929.
As I said earlier in Committee today, the provisions for the rating of unoccupied property will also give rise to litigation. I should have thought that that itself was enough to condemn the Bill, but there are other features. The central feature, indeed the major fault of the Bill, is the concentration of the Secretary of State upon Clause 16, which transfers the liability of rates wholly on to the shoulders of tenants. I have never been in favour of owners' rates; I would have had them abolished a long time ago, and would have supported their abolition in this Bill subject to one proviso, which is that the tenants' rates had been abolished at the same time.
There is no doubt whatsoever that if local government is to succeed in Scotland, if it is not to become the mere agency of central Government, it is imperative that it should live on its own, and it can live on its own only if it is given an adequate field of finance for which it is itself responsible and in no way dependent upon central Government. I know that the minds of those who are concerned with local government in England, particularly the two great associations in England, are very conscious of that, and that their minds are moving towards a method of evolving such a system.
It is unfortunate, I think, that the minds of local associations in Scotland move so much more slowly, and it is unlikely that they will have any movement until the rate burden imposed upon the ratepayers in Scotland becomes intolerable, as it very quickly is becoming. I know the Secretary of State will say that he has got the justification of the Sorn Committee for his Clause 16, but, as my right hon. Friend has said, he has omitted to notice the qualification which comes in paragraph after paragraph of the report upon which this Bill is said to be founded, namely, that the ratepayers may not be overloaded.
Of course, there are other matters which are wrong with the Bill. Clause 1, which is such a monstrous Clause, results from a disregard of the Sorn Committee Report, and gives the local authority the power, or apparent power, to appoint an assessor and then places the whole burden of paying for assessments upon the local authority. It is a very empty power, and I blame the Secretary of State, not

so much for the Clause as for the maladroit way in which the local authorities played their hand. They tried to seize two things and got neither.
As a result, a city like Edinburgh will probably have to pay £100,000 for the right to appoint an assessor once in a person's lifetime; an assessor who has to be selected with qualifications required by the Secretary of State, to whom they can give no instructions and whom they cannot dismiss without the consent of the Secretary of State. I have little sympathy with the local authorities on this matter, and I think it is largely their own fault. Nevertheless, I think the Secretary of State might have been less grasping and a little more helpful to them.
In many ways, the Advisory Council is a good thing. It is unfortunate that it will have no power to do anything to co-ordinate valuations in Scotland. I welcome the news which the Secretary of State gave a few moments ago that there are to be a number of combinations of local authorities in Scotland, because while that is to be deprecated in many ways and while I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Mabon), in the absence of a strong central advisory council with power to do something to co-ordinate the valuations in Scotland, it is the only way in which it can be done.
A matter which troubles me very much, as a practitioner with a good deal of experience at one time in the valuations court, is the new valuation committee. It is to be selected by a person who does not want to select if from a number of persons whom he does not know and none of whom he will be able to tell how long the committee will be required to sit in any one year. For myself, I think there will be a very large number of valuation appeals in the first year, namely, 1961–62, and it may well be that the Secretary of State of that day will be faced with many problems. It may be the present Secretary of State. I know that he shakes his hand and his head at the suggestion and that he gives the impression that, like Cincinnatus, he desires to return to his farm, but he has held office for a long time and may continue to do so. After all, he might be drafted, willy-nilly, like the President of the United States.
I hope that he is Secretary of State, because I am sure that in 1961–62 the Bill, then an Act, will give rise to an enormous number of complications, not least of them being the complications which will arise under the appeal provisions. I know from talks which I have had with other members of the Bar that they are not looking forward to the congestion of the courts when the appeals ultimately land there.
This seems a catalogue of defects, but there are many other defects in the Bill and very little good to be said about it. In conclusion, I should like to say something about what I regard as a major defect, that resulting from Clause 16. I know the Secretary of State is sincere in his belief that as a result of Clause 16 and certain other provisions there will be a major outbreak of building by private enterprise in Scotland of houses to let. The Secretary of State said that in his Second Reading speech and he said it again in Committee.
I hope that I am wrong in my belief that there will be no such resurgence of house building. I gave my reasons for my belief on Second Reading and I will not repeat them now, but I ask the Secretary of State, when the first house is built to let as a result of the Bill, to open it with some due state and to invite some of my right hon. Friends and myself to the opening. We, on our part, will entertain him as well as we can and will confess that we were wrong in our estimates.

Mr. J. Stuart: Surely it will be difficult to say exactly which is the first house built as a result of the Bill. I did not say that there would be a spate of building. I said that the Bill would be a help. In return for the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion, perhaps I may ask him to invite me to Parliament House or elsewhere to celebrate the first case which he gets.

Mr. Johnston: That is very fair. I certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the invitation now. I think there should be no difficulty in deciding which is the first house built. My own belief is that there will not be a single house built to let in Scotland as a result of the Bill within the next five years. When I say "let," I means freely and unrestricted. I may be wrong, and I hope I am. However, I accept the invitation of the

Secretary of State, and I hope he will accept mine.
Much can be said about this melancholy Bill. I regret it mostly, I think, as a lost opportunity, because it would have been possible to do so much in the time available with a really good Bill—so much to infuse new life into local authorities. The Secretary of State has been misled, particularly by those who advised him who are members of the various land owners and factors associations. I hope that one result of the Bill will be that they will cease to trouble him.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nixon Browne.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 6th March in Committee on this Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and I were given certain assurances by the Secretary of State himself. The Secretary of State said:
If the local authorities express to me views different from those which I have already received from them, I will consider later whether there is anything which can be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 6th March, 1956; c. 184.]
That assurance was repeated on 8th March in column 194, and it was on the basis of that assurance that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East withdrew a series of Amendments.
Is it the case that we cannot raise this matter, and that we are not now permitted to discuss this question?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that is not a point of order for me. Bills go through various stages of discussion, and lots of things are said, and other things are not said which should be said. But I am afraid it has got nothing to do with me.

Mr. Lawson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the basis of those assurances we withdrew our Amendments, and we then put down a series of other Amendments, and yet they have not been called. Surely there is some misunderstanding?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know anything about that. Mr. Nixon Browne.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I must thank the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) for the way in which he wound up for his side on this long and complicated


Bill, and I will do the best I can in the time available to answer some of the points raised.
The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the mass of litigation in 1961–62. The Government appreciate, and I think the House as a whole appreciates, that with a major Bill of this nature and with a complete turnover of policy of this nature we must accept that, to begin with in any case, there will be a mass of litigation. We feel that the new time table that has been added to the Bill in Committee will help considerably to get over what will be only a temporary difficulty.
This Bill, and the fact that we have brought it in at all, is evidence of the intention of the Government to do what is right for Scotland. To do this, we have had by this Measure to start revising Scottish rating and valuation from the very foundations.
The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) and others said that the Bill would not of itself build houses. I agree. It is a basic Bill, but I maintain that the Bill, though not itself a solution to Scotland's housing problems, is for the first time a fair and sound foundation upon which a permanent structure can be built and a start can be made to solve Scotland's housing problems which, as we all know, are so much greater than those in England.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), I think, proposed to recommend that the House should divide on this Measure. His ground was that the Bill contained only fundamental provisions affecting the basis of valuation and rating. That, of course, is the Bill's only purpose. The right hon. Member complained that it did not include provisions for re-rating. This Bill is not the right place, and I know that the right hon. Member realises it, for re-rating and many of the other things that perhaps some of us would have liked to have seen done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison) referred twice—once in Committee and once again today—to my passion for justice. The Measure gives permanent justice where today there is so much injustice. I must agree with my hon. Friend that he is perhaps right in taxing

me about temporary injustice. I would not attempt to repeat the admirable speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he spoke of what we know as the Barnton problem.
To summarise, the position is that if any provision modifying the "freeze" were adopted, the question would be whether it should apply to all property, to houses only, or simply to owner-occupied houses. If it were to apply to all property, the effect on total rateable value and therefore on rate poundages would be most alarming. Glasgow is a particular example of this. There would also be a considerable loss in rateable value if the valuations of local authority houses were reduced to a common denominator. Whilst there have been no widespread demands that concessions during the "freeze" should apply to local authority houses, it would be difficult to justify and operate concessions to owner-occupiers only.
It would be extremely difficult, and an innovation in valuation law, to use the ownership of property rather than property itself as a criterion in valuation. Any provision to "job back" to the 1945 valuation roll, or any other year, would remove present anomalies only at the cost of restoring old ones. To base "jobbing back" on the valuation of "comparable" property would lead to heavy losses of rateable value and it would be scarcely possible to job back as regards new property and property which has been altered by additions, by partial demolition, or by conversion into flats. All the proposed schemes for jobbing back would involve the assessor in so much extra work that the possibility of bringing in new valuations in 1961 would be gravely prejudiced.
The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Mabon) referred to the stripping of powers from local authorities. I would remind him that the retention by local authorities of the powers that they have over valuation was the almost unanimous choice of the local authorities—

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Nonsense.

Mr. Browne: —that it should remain a local responsibility—and they accepted with that the condition that if they called the tune they should pay the piper.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: No.

Mr. Browne: Valuation could have been done by the Treasury. After the offer of my right hon. Friend, to which the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) referred in a point of order, no representations were received. I and the Government can only presume that, as the offer made by my right hon. Friend at the very last moment was not accepted, the Scottish local authority associations are satisfied with the condition as it is.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Do I understand that the Secretary of State did not receive a letter dated 23rd March from the office of the town clerk of Greenock? Greenock was communicating the fact that it unanimously put forward its protest to the Secretary of State calling on him to place the responsibility on the shoulders of the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Browne: I have the letter here.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Was that not a representation?

Mr. Browne: It was not representation as the Government have to accept representation. Wherever there is an association of local authorities, there may be members who differ from the findings and opinions of the majority. The Government cannot be swayed in these matters by the opinions, however genuinely and sincerely held, of individual authorities. They must look—local authorities in Scotland would expect them to do so—to the responsible associations to express their views.

Mr. T. Fraser: Did the Secretary of State invite Scottish local authority associations to give him their views subsequent to what he said in the Scottish Standing Committee in March? If not, will he do so before the Bill is taken in another place? There is every reason to believe that both the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of County Councils take a different view from that which the hon. Gentleman attributes to them.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Did not the Convention of Royal Burghs on 9th March so resolve?

Mr. Browne: I also have that beside me. When he met the local authorities for the first time, my right hon. Friend gave them the opportunity to decide

which they wanted, and they later had an opportunity to reconsider their decision. He said, on 6th March, in the plainest possible words:
… I cannot accept these Amendments because they are not in a form which, even supposing we do hand valuation over to a central authority. I can accept at this stage. If the local authorities express to me views different from those which I have already received from them, I will consider later whether there is anything which can be done"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 6th March, 1956; c. 184.]
The moment has arrived when "later" has finished, and between 6th March and today no representations have been received.

Mr. Fraser: Has not the Joint Under-Secretary said that he has beside him a letter which shows that three days later the Convention of Royal Burghs resolved that it wanted the change which the Secretary of State said he would accept if it wanted it.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When it is pointed out that a statement made to the House is incorrect, is it not customary, even for Scottish Ministers, to apologise to the House?

Mr. Speaker: There are differences of opinion about what has happened. That is quite customary in this House.

Mr. Browne: The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston)—

Dr. Dickson Mahon: Answer the question.

Mr. Browne: I have answered the question.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt unless the Minister gives way, and he has not given way.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order. Is it not the case that the Minister referred specifically to a letter which I quoted and that, almost in the same breath, he said that no representations had been made. Is it not out of order to say two contradictory things in the same sentence and get away with it?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order which I can resolve.

Mr. Browne: There have been no representations that the Inland Revenue should take over. That is exactly what the position is.
The hon. and learned Member for Paisley criticised the handling of this matter by local authorities. That was perhaps an unwise thing to do, because our experience of the matter is that the local authorities Associations have in all cases co-operated with us very well. We are very grateful to them for the help they have given us.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Keegan), whose intervention we welcomed, asked an important question about the qualifications of assessors. The qualifications of assessors will be prescribed by regulations made after consulting the Valuation Advisory Council. No assurance can be given that any special preference will be shown to existing assessors. If, however, any existing assessor suffers loss he will have a right to compensation.
The hon. Member for Greenock asked a question about combinations. The position is that the Secretary of State understands that certain local authorities have begun exploratory discussions about the circumstances in which combinations would be advantageous, but my right hon. Friend intends meanwhile to leave proposals for specific combinations entirely to the local authorities.

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) gave me an opportunity to thank the silent Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "The absent Members."]—and the absent Members of the Committee. We are all very grateful to those hon. Members who watch us and help us in our deliberations and do nothing to hinder us. This gives me an opportunity also to thank both sides of the House for the co-operation they have shown to the Front Bench and for the courtesy with which our discussions have always been conducted.

There is one point I should like to make about the local authorities. It is useful to stress again the need for the continued co-operation of the local authorities in this matter if the machine is to be ready to operate next May. They will have a lot to do and we shall, of course, try to help them in whatever way we can. We have given them the machine, and they will make it work

Mr. Lawson: rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward Heath): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 114.

Division No. 244.]
AYES
[11.1 p.m.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Crouch, R. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Arbuthnot, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Armstrong, C. W.
Dance, J. C. G.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Ashton, H.
Davidson, Viscountess
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Atkins, H. E.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Baldwin, A. E.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Balniel, Lord
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Barlow, Sir John
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Barter, John
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Duthie, W. S.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hope, Lord John


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hornby, R. P.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Horobin, Sir Ian


Bidgood, J. C.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Finlay, Graeme
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Bishop, F. P.
Fisher, Nigel
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Gibson-Watt, D.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gough, C. F. H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Gower, H. R.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bryan, P.
Grey, C. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Campbell, Sir David
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Kaberry, D.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Keegan, D.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Green, A.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Kerr, H. W.



Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Kimball, M.




Kirk, P. M.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Lagden, G. W.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Leavey, J. A.
Nabarro, C. D. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thompson, LL.-Cdr.R. (Croydon, E.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Page, R. G.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


McKibbin, A. J.
Partridge, E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Vosper, D. F.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Profumo, J. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wall, Major Patrick


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Ramsden, J. E.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Redmayne, M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Maddan, Martin
Ridsdale, J. E.
Whitelaw, W.S.I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Rippon, A. G. F.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Marples, A. E.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Mathew, R.
Roper, Sir Harold
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maude, Angus
Sharples, R. C.



Mawby, R. L.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and




Mr. Oakshott.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Healey, Denis
Paget, R. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pearson, A.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Holmes, Horace
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Boardman, H.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hoy, J. H.
Probert, A. R.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hubbard, T. F.
Proctor, W. T.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pryde, D. J.


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, H. E.


Boyd, T. C.
Hunter, A. E.
Rankin, John


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Redhead, E. C.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Janner, B.
Reid, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short, E. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Clunie, J.
Kenyon, C.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Coldrick, W.
King, Dr. H. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lawson, G. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Steele, T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lindgren, G. S.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Deer, G.
Logan, D. G.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thornton, E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, J. E.
Timmons, J.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MoGhee, H. G.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fernyhough, E.
MoGovern, J.
Usborne, H. C.


Fienburgh, W.
Mcinnes, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Finch, H. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mahon, Simon
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gibson, C. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.
Winterbottom, Richard


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Monslow, W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grimond, J.
Moody, A. S.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moyle, A.
Zilliacus, K.


Hamilton, W. W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)



Hannan, W.
Noel-Baker Francis (Swindon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Oram, A. E.
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.


Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LACE FURNISHINGS INDUSTRY (EXPORT PROMOTION LEVY)

11.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I beg to move,
That the Draft Lace Furnishings Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Revocation) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th May, be approved.
I shall seek very shortly to commend this Motion to the House. To those not conversant with the facts of this case, or to less reflective hon. Members, if indeed there are less reflective hon. Members, it might seem something of a superficial paradox to be revoking an export promotion Order at a time when the Government are very properly keen to expand the export trade. I should like to assure the House that there is no paradox and no inconsistency in the matter. We are asking the House to approve the revocation of this Order, because the expenditure under the levy is not yielding practical results in the export market.
The fact that we are doing so in no way derogates from the importance which the Government attach to the export trade both generally and in the lace industry. Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, provides for compulsory levies on industries to finance voluntary bodies for scientific research and promotion of export trade. There are four such bodies, two each in the lace and wool industries, concerned respectively with scientific research and export promotion. The lace levy applies to only one part of the industry, the lace furnishing section, which consists of about fifty firms, some in Nottingham and the rest in the Irvine Valley in Scotland. They produce lace curtains, napery and so on to a total value of about £6 million per annum.
The levy was imposed in 1951 for a period up to the end of 1956 and raised about £15,000 a year. It is levied on the manufacturers on a formula which has been revised from time to time, and these revisions are incorporated in the amending Order which it is also sought to revoke. Under the 1951 Order, the levy would lapse in any case after the final collection in January of next year,

1957, and all that the Order does—and it is a narrow point as the House will see—is to shorten that period by one year to bring the levy to an end after the 1956 collection, instead of after the collection in January, 1957.
May I say a word about the attitude of the industry? This action is in fact being taken to meet the wishes of the industry which is paying the levy. At a meeting in October last, attended by 75 per cent. of the firms paying the levy, the Board of Trade was unanimously asked to take the step we are now taking. Of course we have had the statutory consultations with the two trade unions concerned, and it is right that I should read to the House what their attitude is on this matter.
The Scottish Lace and Textile Workers' Union said that as it did not contribute to the levy
the best we can do is remain neutral".
The Amalgamated Society of Operative Lace Makers and Auxiliary Workers said:
The existing levy is far too small to have any appreciable effect and should either be dropped altogether or, with the aid of public funds, increased tremendously.
The Act does not in fact provide for the support of these voluntary bodies by public funds, tremendous or otherwise, so in fact it is right to say that there is no trade union demand for the continuance of the levy in a permissible statutory form.
The effect of the levy shortly has been this: £62,000 has been spent since 1951—£37,000 in Canada and £21,000 in Australia, which are the two markets where this export promotion has mainly occurred. The Canadian expenditure of £37,000, in dollars, amounts to 7 per cent. of the value of lace furnishing exports to Canada during the relevant period. So it is not surprising that the industry says that the campaign has proved ineffective in Canada, and that our Trade Commissioners confirm that the impact there was negligible.
In Australia the position was different but equally conclusive. Australia is probably the best market in the world for these goods, but as the House will appreciate the position is much affected by the recent import restrictions there. The result is that the demand for lace furnishings is in any event in excess of


the permitted quota. That being so, any increase in the export of lace furnishings to Australia can only be achieved at the expense of other British exports. As the campaign cannot increase the overall level of exports to Australia it is unwise to spend money to increase one form of export at the expense of another.
I want the House to realise that this is not the case of an industry with a bad export record. It has a fine record, exporting one-third of its production, mainly to these Commonwealth markets. That record has been achieved without significant help from the levy. Therefore we feel that it is right to accept the judgment of the industry, and the evidence of the facts and figures, that this expenditure is not sufficiently rewarding to be justified. Individual firms in the industry will continue their efforts to promote exports. We wish them well, and we expect the whole of the industry to continue, and where possible to intensify, its efforts in the export market.

Mr. James Harrison: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there has recently been any increase in unemployment in the lace furnishing industry in Scotland and Nottingham?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am not aware of any appreciable increase. Certainly it was not a point taken up by the trade unions that revocation of the Order would be material in that regard.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: This Order reflects the fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition. The Order arises, as the Minister said, from the Industrial Organisation and Development Act introduced by the Labour Government. The purpose of the Act was primarily to establish development councils for various industries. It was hoped by that means to make industry much more efficient, to get improvement in production and distribution; and it was hoped that through co-ordination the different groups of private industry would be better equipped to carry out research. It was hoped that they would be better able to collect vital statistics, to discuss and improve organisation, to engage in personnel training, and to boost exports.
In industries where one could not have a development council provision was made for levies of the kind which we are discussing, for particular purposes. It is now intended to revoke this levy. During the Third Reading of the Bill, hon. Members opposite, who were then in opposition, opposed levies. They did not vote against the proposal, but their main speaker suggested that it was something which they did not like. So we are not surprised that tonight the Government reflects the views expressed at that time. This Order of 21st June, 1951, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), whose illness we regret, has been in operation since. It was subsequently amended by the Government. When it was previously discussed, it was said to be primarily to finance the promotion of the export industry.
The Minister has said that the trade unions have been consulted. That is true; "consulted" is the right word. To say that they have not offered opposition is perhaps also true, but it would be wrong to give the impression that they want to see this levy go. The view of the Scottish trade union is that there is unemployment in the industry and they could not care less about the levy; they are seeking the work and are more concerned about getting work of one kind or another, and I gather their representations have been that the levy is the employers' responsibility; they have told the Minister they are not going to say anything more. But one of the other unions feels that the export drive is not being conducted as efficiently as it should be and suggest that more should be done.
No comment has been made about another union. I do not know whether the Transport and General Workers' Union has made representations to the Department or whether it has been consulted. All I can say on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends is that we think that, at this time of all times, when the Government as a whole are calling for increased exports, this revocation Order is psychologically wrong. We also think that it is wrong in principle, and I shall advise my hon. Friend to vote against it.

11.22 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: I should like to support this Motion. I know that the lace furnishing industry will be grateful


for the intention to revoke this Order. I would emphasise that that does not indicate a defeatist attitude about exports on the part of the industry. Indeed, very much the reverse. As my hon. Friend said, it has a wonderful record of exports. Between 35 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the manufacture goes in exports. The fact is simply that this organisation is at present not giving any help on exports; the industry does not see any possibility of it doing it in the near future, and there does not seem any very great advantage in expending £15,000 a year for nothing at all.
When this organisation was first formed, two-thirds of the £15,000 raised in the levy each year went in trying to boost our exports in Canada to earn dollars, and the remaining £5,000 in Australia. In Canada we were subject to very intense competition from then on by the Americans, mainly in very highly coloured magazines so popular in Canada. To compete, we should have had to do so in those magazines, and we just had nothing like the amount of dollars necessary with which to do it. We therefore switched the ratio round and put £10,000 into Australia and £5,000 into Canada. The Australians first countered, in 1951, with one quota

restriction, and then came along in 1954, when we switched the ratio, with another very crippling one, which was the reason for the trouble there. There are many reasons, with which I will not detain the House at this hour, which made it quite impossible for the industry to switch that sales promotion from those two principal places, Canada and Australia, to anywhere else.

The desire to have this Order revoked does not in any sense mean that the machine holders will not go on trying to boost their exports when and where they can. If there were any future opportunity when such a scheme as this could be put into operation, they would be the first to advocate it. I do not think anybody need worry that an industry with such a particularly fine export record cannot be trusted to boost exports as far as it reasonably can. When all is said and done, the important point is that the Government are not paying any of this £15,000 levy; every single penny comes from the machine holders, and as they are paying the whole of the piper's wages I think they are entitled to say when he should stop playing.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 86.

Division No. 245.]
AYES
[11.25 p.m.


Arbuthnot, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Kirk, P. M.


Armstrong, C. W.
Finlay, Graeme
Lagden, G. W.


Ashton, H.
Fisher, Nigel
Leavey, J. A.


Atkins, H. E.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Balniel, Lord
Gough, C. F. H.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Barlow, Sir John
Gower, H. R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Barter, John
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Green, A.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bidgood, J. C.
Grimond, J.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bishop, F. P.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maddan, Martin


Boothby, Sir Robert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Marples, A. E.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mathew, R.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maude, Angus


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Mawby, R. L.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hornby, R. P.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Crouch, R. F.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Dance, J. C. G.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Oakshott, H. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MoA.
Irving, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Drayson, G. B.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, R. G.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Kaberry, D.
Partridge, E.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Keegan, D.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kerr, H. W.
Profumo, J. D.



Kimball, M.





Raikes, Sir Victor
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'g'tn, S.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Ramsden, J. E.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S)
Wall, Major Patrick


Redmayne, M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Ridsdale, J. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Rippon, A. G. F.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Roper, Sir Harold
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sharples, R. C.
Touche, Sir Gordon



Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Mr. Gerald Wills and Mr. Bryan.




NOES


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Healey, Denis
Pearson, A.


Awbery, S. S.
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Balfour, A.
Holmes, Horace
Probert, A. R.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Proctor, W. T.


Boardman, H.
Hoy, J. H.
Pryde, D. J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, H. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Redhead, E. C.


Bowles, F. G.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boyd, T. C.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Smith, Ellis, (Stoke, S.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, T. W. (Merion[...]th)
Sorensen, R. W.


Burke, W. A.
Kenyon, C.
Steele, T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
King, Dr. H. M.
Thornton, E.


Coldrick, W.
Lawson, G. M.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Usborne, H. C.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Warbey, W. N.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacColl, J. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fernyhough, E.
McInnes, J.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Finch, H. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Winterbottom, Richard


Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mahon, Simon
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Zilliacus, K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Monslow, W.



Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oram, A. E.



Hannan, W.
Oswald, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Wilkins and Mr Deer.


Hayman, F. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)



Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Lace Furnishings Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Revocation) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th May, be approved.

AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS)

11.33 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
That the Draft Fertilisers (England, Wales and Scotland) Scheme, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th May, be approved.
If it is convenient to the House, I will say a word also on the Scheme relating to Northern Ireland. The Scheme before the House provides for the extension of the fertilisers scheme for the next twelve months, beginning on 1st July, on the same basis as the present one. The only administrative change is to bring Northern Ireland into the same scheme of administration as we have had for England and Wales.
The rate of subsidy has been increased to take account of the extra £3 million which was awarded in the recent Annual Review of agricultural prices. The effect of that is to make an increase in the rate for nitrogenous fertilisers, which will raise the rate for sulphate of ammonia from £5 16s. to £6 15s. per ton, and the other rates in proportion. The rate is also increased for phosphatic fertilisers. Thus the rate for superphosphate goes up from £5 4s. to £6 15s. per ton and the other rates again in proportion.
The cost in the current year—that is, the fertiliser year now concluding on 30th June—is estimated to run out at about £17 million. The cost for the coming year will be £17 million, plus the £3 million if fertiliser consumption continues to run at the present level. If, as we hope, consumption increases, the cost will run out somewhat higher.
I think that the House will wish to know of the general progress in this matter. Consumption has shown a very satisfactory increase in the last twelve months, the rate of consumption of nitrogen in 1954–55 of 248,000 tons increasing


to 276,000 tons for 1955–56, that for phosphates increasing from 334,000 tons to 370,000 tons, and that for potash increasing from 252,000 tons to 275,000 tons. It therefore shows over the whole range of fertilisers a very satisfactory increase, and I think that we can safely say that the higher rates of subsidy have had a large part in that increased usage.
The broad effect in the last harvest of record high yields of all cereal crops is to some extent due to higher fertiliser usage, showing that we are getting good value for this large sum of public money which we are committing for the purpose of fertiliser subsidies. The general picture shows that the subsidies are being a big help to individual farmers, stimulating the use of fertilisers, and at the same time being a big help to the national economy in stimulating bigger crops.

Resolved,
That the Draft Fertilisers (England, Wales and Scotland) Scheme, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th May, be approved.

Draft Fertilisers (Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1956, [copy laid before the House, 19th June], approved.—[Mr. Nugent.]

DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the remuneration of the members of any Research Council established by the said Act of the present Session or of any committee appointed by that Council, the salaries and allowances of the Secretary of that Council and of the other officers and servants of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and any expenditure incurred by the said Council under the said Act of the present Session.

HOUSE OF COMMONS ACCOMMODATION, ETC.

Select Committee on House of Commons Accommodation, etc., revived; Committee to have leave to sit and proceed upon Thursday, 28th June, at Four o'clock.—[Captain Waterhouse.]

Mr. T. W. BARR (MOUTH APPLIANCE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

11.38 p.m.

Miss Alice Bacon: Although tonight I wish to draw attention to an individual case, it involves two important points of principle, one of which is the concern of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and the other the concern of the Ministry of Health.
Mr. T. W. Barr, of Leeds, some time ago had an industrial accident for which he receives a disability pension of 40 per cent. As a result of the accident he had an operation. Part of the roof of his mouth and part of his gums had to be removed. In order to speak at all and to carryon a normal life he has to wear an appliance, attached to which is a lower denture. One would have thought that that would have been provided free of charge, but he is being treated as an ordinary dental patient, and he pays as though he were a patient merely requiring dental treatment and dentures.
I believe that two points of principle arise. The first, as I have said, is the concern of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, gives the Minister the power to
make arrangements to secure the provision and maintenance, free of charge or at a reduced charge, of equipment or appliances for any person …
What I wish to emphasise is that Section 75, although in the 1946 Act, was never put into operation, and that was solely because there was put into operation at the same time the National Health Service Act, which provided these appliances free of charge for everybody in the country.
I know that the Government will say—I have had this reply from both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance—that we ought not to differentiate between those who suffer an accident in the course of everyday life and those who suffer an accident by way of an industrial injury. But we already accept differentiation. We


accept differentiation in regard to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. War pensioners are treated differently from civilian sick. The industrially injured are treated differently. I would emphasise that those who are insured under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act pay an extra contribution each week to be so insured.
I have a letter from the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in which he says:
If the introduction of the Health Service had come after the coming into force of the Industrial Injuries Act, Section 75 would have been there to anticipate the introduction of the Health Service in the field of the industrially disabled; but, in fact, as you know, this situation never arose, as the Acts came into force simultaneously.
That shows that, but for the fact that we had a National Health Service Act that covered the whole population, special treatment would have been allowed to those who had industrial injuries. Surely now that there are charges for certain appliances under the National Health Service Act it is reasonable to expect that there should be some special provision for those who are injured at work. For the first time for many years workers are today having to pay for some of these appliances although they have been injured in the course of their employment.
It seems that there is a certain element of chance whether or not one gets a free appliance according to one's injury. If Mr. Barr had lost an arm or leg he would have been provided with a free appliance without question, but because it happens to be an appliance to which teeth are attached it comes within the provisions for National Health Service charges.
There is another point which was raised by the Minister in the letter that he wrote to me on 16th June. He said:
… in a case where some form of appliance has been found to be necessary, the extent of the disabilities caused by the loss of faculty may well depend on whether a suitable appliance has been fitted and, if so, whether it can be worn comfortably and used effectively.
If that means anything at all, surely it means that if Mr. Barr had not a satisfactory appliance, his disability pension would be greater than it is. Yet he is having to pay for the appliance.
The Government ought to consider putting Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act into operation. It is only fair to the great body of

workers who are paying their industrial injury contributions that they should be covered for appliances of this kind. If the Government refuse to do this, and if the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance finds that it cannot do it, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is in a little difficulty because two Ministries are involved. I believe the case might have been dealt with a little differently by the Ministry of Health.
I do not want to debate whether it is right or wrong that we should have charges for various appliances, but even if we accept that there should be a charge for dentures I believe that such charge was never intended in a case of this kind. The fact that Mr. Barr has an injury to the roof of his mouth, that 1½ inches of his gums are missing, and that he cannot speak without the appliances, surely puts him in an entirely different category from someone who merely has dentures.
I have here a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in which she says:
We appreciate that patients may suffer inconvenience while their dentures are under repair and that this will be greater in some cases than in others. There are unfortunately a large number of people who would not be able to attend properly to their duties if their dentures were broken—telephonists, shop assistants, 'bus conductors …
and so on. Surely, we are not going to put Mr. Barr in the same category as somebody who happens to be without dentures for a few days. It is not merely a question of experiencing difficulty in speaking: he cannot speak at all. Further, he finds it extremely difficult to get a dentist who will supply the kind of appliance which he needs. It constantly needs repairing, and when it needs repairing he just cannot speak and so cannot follow his occupation. Indeed, I believe that he really ought to be allowed two appliances, because he finds it very difficult to carry on his normal life when anything goes wrong with the appliance which he has.
Up to now I have received very little satisfaction in this matter. I have asked Questions about the matter. I have had correspondence with the Ministry of National Insurance and the Ministry of Health, but neither Department seems to accept responsibility. This means that


a man who has been unfortunate enough to sustain an industrial injury suffers this great disability, and yet he is regarded as a normal dental patient. I know that a big principle is involved, but I believe that the time has come when Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act should be put into operation. In the meantime, I suggest that the Ministry of Health should have dealt differently with the matter.

11.48 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): As the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said, this debate is about her constituent Mr. Barr, and since the wording she chose for the subject of her debate was "The provision of mouth appliance for Mr. T. W. Barr", I will deal with the particular case before I come to the general principle she raised.
Mr. Barr was involved in an industrial accident in June, 1949. He sustained an injury to the nose. The wound did not heal and an operation became necessary in February, 1952. The operation took place at Leeds General Infirmary, and part of his palate was removed. Consequently, Mr. Barr now has to wear a full set of dentures, the upper denture also serving as an obturator, which is an appliance specially made to fill a hole in the roof of the patient's mouth.
The first point I should like to make is that Mr. Barr is still an out-patient of Leeds General Infirmary and is being seen regularly by the ear, nose and throat specialist who performed the operation on him. He is also referred to the Dental Hospital at Leeds, as necessary. It is true that he receives a disability pension administered by my own Ministry under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, on an assessment of 40 per cent.
Mr. Barr's first set of dentures was supplied by the hospital in June, 1952. In July, 1954, it was found that Mr. Barr needed a new upper plate, and that also was supplied by the hospital. I want to emphasise that no charge was made in either case, as the United Leeds Hospitals, which include the Dental Hospital at Leeds, are empowered, under an Order made under Section 4 of the National

Health Service Act, 1952, to remit charges for dentures where the dental services are provided as part of clinical teaching.
In June last year, Mr. Barr went to a dental practitioner in Leeds and that practitioner applied to the Dental Estimates Board for approval for a new set of dentures. That approval was given, and the dentures were supplied; and it is here, I think, that the hon. Lady comes into the picture, if I may put it in that way, because it was subsequent to this that Mr. Barr approached her on the question of the cost. In October, 1955, his case was taken up by the British Legion, who stated that he had to be fitted every year with new dentures; and, furthermore, that he really needed a reserve set. In the special circumstances, they asked that these should be provided by the State.
The Board, however, was unaware when this approach was made that Mr. Barr was still an out-patient at the hospital; and they said that if further dentures were clinically necessary, the Board would be prepared to consider estimates from his dentist. They could not, however, approve the provision of spare or duplicate dentures. They also stated that he would be liable for the statutory charge under the 1951 Act which the Board could not excuse, although he could seek help from the National Assistance Board.
In March this year, the hon. Lady wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and referred to the fact that Mr. Barr was in receipt of a disability pension, and suggesting, therefore, that in those circumstances dentures should be supplied without charge. The Minister replied that appliances of which artificial teeth were a part were regarded as dentures for the purposes of the charges payable under the Act of 1951; and, I would point out that that was an Act passed by her own party when in power.
The Minister of Health also made the point which I have referred to earlier, that some teaching hospitals, including the United Leeds Hospitals, are empowered to remit charges under that Act where dental services are provided; and it was suggested that when Mr. Barr needed new dentures he should apply to the hospital he had been attending as


an out-patient. Mr. Barr is still an out-patient, and had an appointment on 31st May last. He was then due to see the professor of dental surgery and did attend on that date; but he did not, in fact, wait to see the professor.
I should make it clear that duplicate sets of dentures cannot be supplied under the National Health Service. That is due, in part, to the limitations of finance, but also to the shortage of dental man-power; and while that is the position, it is thought to be unwise to divert the limited resources of the Service to providing duplicate dentures.
There are, in fact, certain disadvantages in duplication unless the individual who has two sets of dentures wears both of them regularly. A person ought really to wear one set by day and the other by night. The tendency is for people to wear the set which is easier to wear, and as a result, when they use their reserve set some day, they probably find that it does not fit the mouth. That is one practical example of the disadvantages of having duplicate sets of dentures.
If Mr. Barr needs to have repairs to his dentures frequently, as the hon. Lady suggested tonight, I am advised that that can be effected usually in a matter of hours. If he went to hospital the work would be put in hand at once, or if he went to a dental practitioner, it could be done under the emergency service.
I would confirm, what I believe the hon. Lady already knows, that once artificial teeth are added to an appliance it becomes a denture, and a charge is payable. Mr. Barr's appliance is essentially a denture, carrying an extension to act as an obturator. Mr. Barr, from the information available to the Ministry of Health, has not lost or broken his dentures in the four years during which he has been wearing them. They may have needed repairs, but according to the records Mr. Barr has not needed a replacement because of any damage which has caused breakage. No charge was made for the previous two sets provided through the dental hospital, and I think that is important and links with the earlier point that it is most probable that, had the hon. Lady's constituent gone back to the hospital in 1955 when he ordered the last set, there would have been no

charge had there been need of replacement. If any further alteration occurs to his mouth, it is open to Mr. Barr to seek new dentures from the hospital at which he is still an out-patient, in which case he would not be liable to any charge.
On the general principle of the power under Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, I would say that power has never been used to date. I understand that that Clause was written into the 1946 Bill, which became operative in 1948, as a stopgap measure in case there was any delay in bringing in the National Health Service. The hon. Lady confirmed my understanding in her speech. That contingency did not arise because the National Health Service, the Industrial Injuries Scheme and the main National Insurance Scheme, came into operation on an identical date, 5th July, 1948. Under the social insurance schemes, there has never been any differentiation in the matter of payment for treatment and appliances between those whose injuries entitled them to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts or Industrial Injuries Acts and other sick and injured workmen.

Mr. James Griffiths: I want to raise a very important point. I think there is a deep fallacy here, contained in the Minister's letter. When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says, as she has done, that there has been in our social insurance schemes no differentiation in treatment between people whose disabilities arise from injury or accident and others, that is quite true, if what the hon. Lady means by the social insurance schemes is the general schemes. But she has to remember that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act was to replace the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. Under the latter Acts it had become the practice of good employers everywhere to make a contribution, over and above the monetary payment, for appliances and limbs of all kinds. The reason why Section 75 was introduced into the Act was to enable the Ministry of National Insurance to maintain that good practice.
If employers did that when workmen did not contribute towards their disablement benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, surely there is the strongest possible reason for making that provision when, for the first time and in the


only country in the world this applies, the workmen are paying for it. If what the hon. Lady has said is made the general rule, the trade union movement will be asking the Government to reconsider the matter, because it means that the Industrial Injuries Scheme, for which half of the money comes from the workmen, will be less generous than the workmen's compensation schemes. It was never intended that that should be the case.

Miss Pitt: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has paid a tribute—perhaps unconsciously—to employers in saying that it was the practice of good employers to supply such appliances where necessary over and above what workmen had under workmen's compensation. I shall elaborate on that issue a little later. I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with my interpretation of the reasons for Section 75 in the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act—that it was intended to bridge a gap.

Mr. Griffiths: The reason for Section 75 was that it was the practice under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts to do that. It never came into operation, because the National Health Service provided this kind of service free for everybody, but when we began to make charges for it good employers would have made an extra payment in cases of this kind. Is the Industrial Injuries Act to be less generous than the good employer?

Miss Pitt: I willingly accept that the right hon. Gentleman, in his personal experience, knew of many good employers, but it is surely not correct to say that that service was available to every workman under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. It was not part of the social services, which is the point I am trying to make. Under the social insurance scheme there had never been any difference—

Mr. Griffiths: There was no social insurance or Industrial Injuries Scheme until the Industrial Injuries Act. The Industrial Injuries Act is a separate Act, and the State makes only a small contribution. It is not the State which provides benefits to workmen.

Miss Pitt: Nevertheless, the old workmen's compensation scheme was part of

the social insurance in this country, before the considerable change made by the Acts to which I have referred. I am trying to emphasise that there was no difference in this matter of payment for treatment and appliances between those whose injuries entitled them to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, or the Industrial Injuries Act and all other sick and injured workmen.
In the old National Health Insurance Scheme, which was repealed by the 1946 Act, appliances were available to members of certain approved societies. That was the established position before 1948. Such benefits varied enormously between different societies, as I know from my own experience. They took the form of some kind of grant towards the appliance that was necessary. That provision was in no way tied to receipt of workmen's compensation. It applied to anybody who belonged to the old National Health Insurance Scheme, provided he was a member of an approved society though not all societies gave those additional benefits.
When the National Health Service was introduced in 1948, the supply of appliances was put on the same basis for the whole of the population. Successive Governments have maintained that basis. The National Health Service Act, 1951, passed in May of that year by the Socialist Government and, of course, including a charge for dentures, which is the subject of the case tonight, still made no change and still provided that there should be no difference in the treatment for industrial injuries cases. So again no use was made of the provision of Section 75.
A suggestion for the use of the power given by that Section was put forward during the Committee stage of the National Health Service Act, 1952. The Government's view then was that there was no good ground for introducing differentiation. That view still holds. Those who qualify under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act for injury at work draw a higher rate of benefit. They pay extra contributions, but they draw higher rates of benefit. There may be other cases equally disabling which are not caused by injury at work, in which those concerned experience the same difficulties and disabilities, but only draw sickness benefit


while away from work. They have no disability pension, even if they are able to work. To increase differentiation by giving industrial injury cases free appliances is not justified. The Minister said in his letter to the hon. Lady on 16th June that the reasons given in 1952 apply as forcibly now as then.
Just as there was no difference between industrial injury and other cases in 1948, and that position was maintained in 1951 and in 1952, so I think it ought to be maintained now.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I must say to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that we shall feel obliged to return to this matter. She is laying down a doctrine which is untenable. It is one which we never contemplated would be accepted under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, under which for the first time in history workmen are contributing to cover the risk of accidents in industry. That is operating for the first time in this country. It is not operating in any other country. We do not call this a denture case; it is a case of serious disability. I am certain, from many years of wide experience of workmen's compensation

cases, that good employers—and there were many, although there were some of the other sort—and that good insurance companies, would not have hesitated in this case. We cannot leave this matter where it is. It appears that under this Industrial Injuries Act, under which men contribute out of their wages to make provision, and are doing so for the first time in history, we are less generous than good employers were. That is not living up to the intentions of the Act. Section 75 was never brought into operation because in 1948 the National Health Service provided all these benefits for the whole population. If, under the Health Service, charges are to be made, we ought to invoke Section 75.

Miss Pitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman, tell me why Section 75 was not put into operation by his party in 1951 when they introduced charges?

Mr. Griffiths: The case, according to the Minister's letter, was based on the fact that there has been no differentiation in the social services. That is untenable.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.